Brian Peat could be living the life of a retired Riley.
He fills his days playing tennis and bowls or, alternatively, chooses to do nothing more energetic than soaking in the spa at Chatsford Retirement Village in Mosgiel where he and his wife Marjorie live.
But the former bank manager is busy in his role as national president of the Retirement Villages Residents Association of New Zealand, an organisation which provides a voice for residents in retirement villages.
Elected in July last year, it was the first time the president had been based in the South Island, something he described as a "real coup" for the Otago region.
It was a key time given the review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003 which the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development had previously announced would begin this year, with the ministry working in partnership with the retirement sector.
The Act sets out obligations for retirement village operators and the rights of residents and anyone considering moving into a retirement village.
The ministry said the review aimed to address issues and strike a balance between the rights and responsibilities of residents and operators of retirement villages.
It was working towards the release of a discussion document in September.
It could not come soon enough for Mr Peat (75) who said village life was "not in dispute at all" but the Act desperately needed reviewing to protect the vulnerable elderly in what was estimated as a $106billion industry.
"At the end of the day, village life is wonderful but there are some major, major problems that need to be addressed."
Mr and Mrs Peat retired to Australia’s Sunshine Coast but moved back to New Zealand in 2018, settling at Chatsford.
They were attracted by the space, which Mr Peat said had more than many newer villages — the gardens, layout and the overall "very, very nice" feeling of the resort-style facility boasted a wide variety of amenities.
It was a return to their home region; brought up in Tapanui where his parents were farming, Mr Peat worked for the Bank of New Zealand for more than 30 years throughout the country.
He met his future wife while working in Omakau and the couple married in Ophir on the day there was famously a 21degC frost at night.
After ending up as a regional manager serving the area from Kaikoura to Oamaru a bank restructure led to a move as chief executive for North Canterbury Federated Farmers for three years.
From there, the couple moved to Queensland where they bought management rights; managing apartments and villages for investors and renting them to the public or holidaymakers for 19 years.
Retirement was initially in a retirement village on the Sunshine Coast where the structure was very different from New Zealand.
They owned the house but not the land and got the benefits of capital gains (or losses) selling and buying on the open market.
"A very, very simple process compared to here," Mr Peat said.
His wife became keen to return to New Zealand to live and, after returning for a holiday, they put their name down at Chatsford and sold up in Australia.
Mr Peat became involved with the Retirement Villages Residents Association about 18 months ago, initially asked to be vice-president, and he has been the architect of its restructure.
Asked why he chose to become involved in retirement village politics, Mr Peat said one of the issues was many residents were content to just "be retired and be happy".
And that was fine, as long as things were fair.
But he could see "things weren’t quite right"; there was unfairness and consumers were not protected.
"It’s sad, people are vulnerable. They don’t question, they don’t want to question," he said.
He acknowledged residents all signed Occupation Right Agreements but questioned how many totally understood the documents, including himself.
A priority policy for the association was capital being returned to the resident on exit — or to their estate — within a defined period, ultimately 28 days.
Other legislative changes they wanted were weekly fees stopping on exit, a clear policy for transfers between independent units and care facilities to ensure fees did not continue for both services and clarification over repairs and maintenance.
While stressing not all villages followed unfair practices, the association said the Act — which never contained a clause for review — allowed them to do so.
Under the Act, operators could continue to charge a weekly fee until a new purchaser moved in, even after the departing resident had handed over the keys; the Occupation Right Agreement loan (capital sum to the operator) did not legitimately have to be repaid until a new purchaser had moved in; charge for capital loss but not share any capital gain; charge for all repairs and maintenance inside the unit, even the hot-water cylinder and continue to accrue the deferred management fee after a resident left, until the full term of accrual was reached.
Mr Peat said there were situations further north where residents had paid $270,000-odd for a unit 20 years ago and still did not have their money back 10 or 11 months after exiting and the units were being relicensed for $1.4million.
He believed it was simple to remedy the issues in the Act.
In Queensland, when he and his wife managed apartments and villages, there was a sinking fund — operators had to put money away for specific projects — and, by adopting something similar, people could be paid out within 28 days.
The association also wanted some form of regulation for sales people in villages — "they have to be qualified in some way" — which did not currently exist.
Mr Peat said it was more complicated to sell a licence than it was to sell a house.
The association has petitioned Parliament, engaged the Commerce Commission and met regularly with Members of Parliament, including Housing Minister Megan Woods in August last year, to alert them to its concerns.
He expected 2023 would be a "huge challenge" for the association but he was excited about the capabilities that it had, including contracted chief executive Nigel Matthews.
The expertise that could also be drawn on in villages like Chatsford was "enormous" and the group’s restructure had ensured succession.
The association has about 9,000 members but more than 48,000 people lived in retirement villages which was a huge challenge for membership.
At Chatsford, which had 267 apartments and townhouses, there were 180 members — probably the highest of any village.
Throughout New Zealand, membership sat at about 25% while some parts of Auckland were about 15%, Mr Peat said.
There was a need to convince residents of the value of membership.
He toured the North Island in August last year, making presentations, which resulted in an increase.
"[The residents] are blown away with the unfairness and lack of consumer protection.
"That has to be part of the new Act. It has to protect people because nothing’s there at the moment," he said.
Families of residents were also often unaware what was potentially going to confront them and an associate membership had been developed so they could be kept informed.
He had shouted his own children that membership.
Mr Peat said the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand — a voluntary, nationally-based membership association representing operators, developers and managers of retirement villages — to its credit, was listening and was "trying to get things better".
As far as his own organisation was concerned, it still had "a hell of a lot of work to do ... but it’s working and we’re getting there".
Mr Peat, who is also a member of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, was finding the presidency role rewarding.
"You retire and think, what am I going to do? Play bowls? Play tennis? But it’s not invigorating.
"Something like this, it’s a challenge but it’s bloody good when you see you’ve made some progress."
