Anne Gibson, Property Editor, NZ Herald | 1 Sep, 2025
A complaint brought by residents of a retirement village has been rejected after alcohol was banned at happy hour in common areas.
Events date back nearly two years to the village’s barbecue area on Christmas Day and the subsequent emails that resulted in five residents taking a complaint, now published on the Retirement Commission’s website.
The five residents of Condell Retirement Village in Bryndwr, Christchurch, are the only ones so far this year to take a dispute all the way to the commission and have a decision published there.
Most other disputes are settled without reaching that forum. The Condell ruling is the only one published in 2025.
Rowland and Patricia Dunbar, Anne McDonnell and John and Jean Sparrow brought the case against Condell Retirement Village (2011).
The Christchurch village owner/operator and the complaining residents agreed there was a gathering in the barbecue area on December 25, 2023, the decision said after an independent disputes panel heard the arguments.
Following the gathering, an email was sent to all residents by village relationship manager Alison McCormick.
“A few individuals breached the alcohol-free policy in the BBQ common area. As a result of this incident, the directors can confirm the village common areas are now permanently alcohol-free.
From now on, all happy hours in the community centre will be alcohol free.
“The actions of those involved in this breach do not reflect the values we strive to maintain in our village,” McCormick wrote.
A director of the company, Paul McCormack, sent a further email to everyone that said a group of residents had “displayed a boastful attitude while violating the village’s zero-alcohol policy”.
“We urge those involved to cease any form of bullying directed at residents who have complied with the village policy and are accepting of our decision.”
The decision summary from disputes panellist David Carden said the issues were whether the village operator/respondent had breached the occupation rights agreement of the residents.
That was to do with obligations under the code of residents’ rights by:
- Banning alcohol from all communal areas in the village;
- Changing access to services for the applicants in the village;
- Communications to all residents in the village concerning an alcohol-free policy;
- Exposing the applicants to subsequent ill-treatment and distrust;
- Failing adequately to apologise to the applicants.
One resident referred to the owner/operator making a threat to residents that had financial implications as “a form of elder abuse tantamount to bullying innocent people”.
But the disputes panel found in favour of the village operator/respondent and dismissed the complaints.
There was no evidence in the documents provided that identified them and therefore no basis to find they were implicated in what was said in those letters, the panel said.
There was nothing objectionable in the wording of the letters and nothing that did not treat them with courtesy or disrespect their rights.
If they considered they had been harmed by the letters, they could correct that by clarifying matters to other residents, the decision said.
McCormack told the Herald he was delighted with the decision, which upheld the actions of the owners.
“We are very happy with our conduct.”
It was a breach of alcohol laws for liquor to be served without a licence, he said. Yet that had been the case for many years, which the owners realised was illegal.
Asked why the village did not get a licence to allow alcohol to continue to be served in common areas, McCormack said the directors had decided against that.
But the dispute had cost $20,000, of which the residents had only been ordered to pay $2100 in costs, he said.
Alcohol remains banned in common areas of the village, McCormack said.