\u201cOne of the cited reasons was safety, which gave rise to a question over why it would be safer to get money from an ATM at the local shopping centre rather than in a village reception area,\u201d a Murray Halberg resident said.<\/p>\n
Ryman only removed ATMs at two villages after a 31-village probe.<\/p>\n
A Ryman spokesman confirmed it would keep the ATM.<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter reviewing the usage of the ATM at Murray Halberg village, we identified that it had historically low usage. However, after proposing its removal to residents, we have considered their feedback and confirmed we will be retaining the ATM. This was communicated to our residents,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Murray Halberg residents were not alone.<\/p>\n
The company had indeed undertaken a wider review of ATMs in 31 villages in New Zealand and Australia that had opened before 2019 and now have ATMs. <\/p>\n
There are 29 Ryman retirement villages that have retained their ATMs after the review. <\/p>\n
Ryman considered factors such as transaction frequency and residents\u2019 access to alternative banking services that were safe for them to use nearby.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe removal of an ATM is limited to two locations where there is very low usage and residents have safe and convenient access to nearby ATMs or banking facilities,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Hamilton\u2019s Hilda Ross Retirement Village and Tauranga\u2019s Bob Owens Retirement Village were the only places ATMs had been removed.<\/p>\n
Ryman villagers want to keep their ATMs. Photo \/ 123RF<\/p>\n
One of the Lynfield residents said he was pleased the ATM at his village was staying, although he did not use it much.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were definitely told they were going from all villages. Looks like a backtrack they don\u2019t want to admit to.\u201d<\/p>\n
The company says many Ryman villages typically offer extensive on-site amenities, including cafes, hairdressing salons, libraries and shops.<\/p>\n
Residents often rely on village-organised transport to nearby shopping centres for banking needs, or use the village\u2019s internal shop for small cash transactions if available.<\/p>\n
Other disputes<\/p>\n
No retirement village disputes have been published on the Retirement Commission\u2019s website for 2026.<\/p>\n
In 2025, only two disputes were published there. In both cases, residents had brought the disputes to the commission and lost.<\/p>\n
One case involved a path through a village and the other involved alcohol.<\/p>\n
Arvida Bethlehem Country Club in Tauranga. Photo \/ Google Maps<\/p>\n
Residents of Tauranga retirement village Arvida<\/a> Bethlehem Country Club lost a case<\/a> they brought against the operator over a footpath closure and a fence being put up to stop them taking a shortcut to their clubhouse.<\/p>\n The issue arose after the operator decided to close a footpath and erect the fence.<\/p>\n That path had been used by residents to get to their clubhouse but now they have to take a longer way around to access communal facilities at the property at 111 Carmichael Rd.<\/p>\n In a rare step, a group living at the village in Tauranga<\/a> took their case through the formal dispute resolution system and went all the way to a dispute panel hearing.<\/p>\n But privacy and disturbance concerns for adjacent villas were two defences for the path closure and fence construction, according to the decision published on the Retirement Commissioner\u2019s website.<\/p>\n Second case in Christchurch<\/p>\n The only other complaint<\/a> of 2025 involved alcohol being banned at happy hour in common areas.<\/p>\n Five residents of Condell Retirement Village at Bryndwr, Christchurch, brought a dispute complaining the operator had breached the occupation rights agreement of the residents by:<\/p>\n Banning alcohol from all communal areas in the villageChanging access to services for the applicants in the villageCommunications to all residents in the village concerning an alcohol-free policyExposing the applicants to subsequent ill-treatment and distrustFailing to apologise adequately to the applicants.<\/p>\n But a disputes panel found in favour of the village operator\/respondent and dismissed the complaints.<\/p>\n It was a breach of alcohol laws for liquor to be served without a licence, yet that had been the case for many years, which the owners realised was illegal.<\/p>\nThe barbecue area of Condell Retirement Village, Christchurch: it was an allegation of alcohol being consumed in this area and subsequent emails that resulted in a complaint, published on the Retirement Commission’s website.<\/p>\n