The housing crisis has a waiting room

A heater stops working. A message is sent. Someone says they will look into it. A week passes, then another. The people involved may still be perfectly capable of sorting it out, but the problem has started to occupy more of their lives.

That waiting period deserves a place in the way we talk about New Zealand’s housing crisis.

We discuss supply, rents, interest rates and the cost of building. We need to. We also need to pay attention to what happens inside the homes we already have, when a reasonable question becomes difficult to ask and a manageable problem becomes expensive to leave unanswered.

A bond that remains disputed may be money a tenant needs for their next move. A landlord waiting for rent may have commitments of their own. A property manager may be chasing an approval, arranging access and trying to give everyone an answer. These pressures arrive in the middle of ordinary life. Children still need collecting. People still need to go to work.

My background as a tenancy mediator shapes where I look. I am interested in the interval between something going wrong and someone deciding there is no point trying to talk about it anymore. What information was missing? Who could have made a decision? Was the next action ever clear?

The questions are ordinary. A tenant asks, “How do I get my bond back?” An owner asks, “What can I do about the unpaid rent?” A property manager asks, “How do I get everyone to agree on what happens next?” Each is a way of asking for a problem to move. A service that starts there has a better chance of understanding what the person needs.

The government’s October 2025 renter survey, based on 1,501 renters surveyed in late 2025, offers a useful reminder. Its page-27 summary says roughly half of renters who had concerns had discussed them with their landlord or property manager in the previous three months; the others had not. That finding concerns renters with issues, not half of all renters. Tribunal applications alone cannot explain all of that experience.

That survey tells us about renters’ experiences. It does not tell the whole story of a tenancy. An owner may be waiting for enough information to authorise work; a property manager may be trying to resolve conflicting accounts. We need to hear those experiences directly too. Understanding each person’s position is part of finding a fair way forward.

We should be careful about what we read into silence. Someone may be weighing up the relationship, their housing options, their confidence or simply the energy required. A quiet tenancy is not sufficient evidence that everything is fine.

There is a social cost here that is difficult to put on an invoice. Consider the attention spent drafting a message late at night, the uncertainty about whether to send it, and the time a small property owner spends trying to reconstruct what was said three weeks earlier. Repeated across households, that is a great deal of life consumed by unfinished business.

I want tenancy services to be designed around that reality. A person should be able to explain what happened, find out what matters and get a clear next step without first becoming an expert in the system. If a repair is agreed, someone should know who is doing it and when. If the facts are disputed, the disagreement should be recorded accurately. If the matter needs a formal decision, it should arrive with the relevant evidence intact. That means hearing tenants, landlords and property managers without assuming that a role tells us who is right. Their rights, responsibilities and ability to absorb delay can differ. The facts still need to be established.

Speed matters because housing problems continue while the paperwork moves. But speed needs a purpose. Rushing a person into an agreement they do not understand is another failure. A fair service gives people enough time to make a decision while removing the waiting that serves nobody.

Some disputes need adjudication. Some people need independent advice before any further conversation. Earlier help should make those routes easier to reach when they are needed.

There is room for ambition in the everyday details: the answer that arrives, the appointment that is kept, the payment that is correctly recorded. A housing system should be judged partly by whether people can get those things done and return to living in their home.

Read next: Pets, permission and the cost of getting stuck →