I am writing re your article ‘Rona versus Resthome' published October 9, 2015.
The heading would suggest that there is going to be a winner and a loser. I reckon Rona's the loser and really there is no contest! Rona is a single senior citizen against the might and power of Australasia's largest insurance and investment company, Oceania. Come on, get real!

How can anyone be so heartless as to offer treatment of a senior citizen like this?

Rona, a settled regular rent paying, dependable tenant, and community minded person. As a trade chaplain spending her life in the support of fire fighters at the Tamahere cool store disaster, serving staff, walking beside them in traumatic and death circumstances. A person of integrity requiring modest respect. Then her landlord offering a pushbike-like replacement for the present motorised mobility scooter, ie a one-room bed sitter to replace a two-bedroom unit with separate service areas.

How fascinating that Oceania's (Melrose's) website says 'we meet or exceed the expectation of residents”. How can this be correct?

The website goes on to say, 'We offer care that reflects the right of choice, to enjoy a high quality of life, we take pride in what we do, customer focussed.”

Melrose then do completely the opposite in my view, causing unwanted stress, uncertainty, diminishing the expectations of this resident with a downgrade like
the back of a plane seat instead of the business class she has been accustomed to during the last eight years.

Care? Choice? Exceeding expectations? Pride in what we do? Nah, quite the opposite. How upset marginalised Rona feels.

Oceania needs to rescind the decision and maintain the existing agreement, or enhance it to retain a modicum of honesty and care in this instance, admit they made a mistake and move on.

Oceania, experts in the realm of health care for the elderly? Weighed in the balances and found wanting? Yep, for sure.

I Bateman, Tauranga