A policy change within Victoria University of Wellington's halls of residence has become subject to a human rights case. Photo / Supplied
A policy change within Victoria University of Wellington's halls of residence has become subject to a human rights case. Photo / Supplied
A former student of Victoria University with an arthritic condition is suing the university for $35,000 after a policy change meant he was too old to live in his requested halls of residence and he was left with a “painful” walk from the accommodation he was instead provided.
Taiming Zhang,22, alleged that because he was placed in a hall further from the campus, the university had indirectly discriminated against him.
He described the Wellington campus as being “virtually on a mountain” meaning he had to endure a “painful” walk uphill to get there.
The university changed the rules for many of its halls of residence in 2021, restricting access to its fully-catered accommodation to any students over the age of 20.
Zhang has taken his case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal in an attempt to have $17,000 in hall fees refunded, and a further $18,000 in compensation and transport costs paid to him.
“I tried everything for them to not put me in the worst hall possible for a disabled student, yet they still did,” he submitted to the tribunal during Thursday’s hearing in Wellington.
“My difficulty in hill climbing was made clear to the university accommodation, yet the university refused to put me anywhere else.”
However, Victoria University submitted Zhang did not bring his arthritis to the attention of staff until a year into his time at the institution. It claimed as soon as they were made aware, it helped him find suitable accommodation closer to the campus.
Legal counsel for the university Warren Castle submitted that had Zhang’s condition been known to the school earlier then free transport could have easily been arranged for him.
Zhang provided evidence to the tribunal to prove his condition and this was not disputed by the university.
He represented himself and appeared by an audio-video link from Hong Kong, where he is now residing.
“They blocked halls of residence from access, all of this is harmful and wrong and is against the Human Rights Act,” he submitted.
Zhang claimed the closest bus stops to his accommodation were further away than advertised and the routes the buses took were indirect and required multiple transfers. He instead took Ubers, he said.
The university's main campus is situated atop a hill. Photo / Mark Mitchell
His primary argument against the university’s age policy was that residential advisers - who were employed by it to provide pastoral care and advice to first-year students - were over the age of 20 and were allowed to live in the halls.
“They use employment as a defence,” Zhang submitted, “They don’t work full-time except in the first few weeks.”
“What this means for the vast majority of the time they’re not actually living there as employees, they’re living there as non-employees.”
He submitted the residential advisers used the same bathrooms and common areas as the students.
Policy Change
Zhang was offered a place at a non-catered hall of residence in 2020 before he made multiple complaints. He was eventually moved to a catered hall where he stayed until the end of the year.
He applied to remain in the same hall the following year but around that time the age policy had come into effect and he was now too old to remain there.
Zhang was asked to list three alternative options and after touring one of those, he emailed the university to tell them he had “severe arthritis” and could not be placed in a hall that was downhill from the campus.
The university submitted that was the first time it had heard of Zhang’s condition.
It worked with him to find a suitable alternative and in February 2021 it placed him in a catered flat on the same road as the main campus.
In rejecting Zhang’s claim of discrimination, the university submitted he had not fully explored his transportation options, despite its several attempts to assist him.
Stephanie Cottrill, associate director of student accommodation for the university, told the tribunal she assisted in implementing the age policy.
Cottrill said the policy was to limit the age gap between the students and to respond to reports of coercive relationships between students.
“Some of our young people are 17 and the difference between a 17-year-old and a 21-year-old in terms of life experience and maturity is quite significant,” she said.
She said the policy change was also designed to cater to first-year students who were away from home for the first time and required a greater level of pastoral care and help.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal heard the case. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson
In response to Zhang’s submission regarding residential advisers remaining in the halls following the policy change, Cottrill said they were university employees and essential to the pastoral care of the students.
Zhang asked Cottrill why the issue of coercive relationships was not of concern to the university with regard to the residential advisers.
