Complications in my planned move forced me to rent my recently purchased NZ home. I hired a professional property manager given my overseas location and warnings the NZ government has strict laws and penalties regarding their required filings and bond holdings for all rentals. The first property manager was the local\closest realtor.

Despite the vacant home being well-maintained and spotless for the recent home purchase settlement, the property manager required their team of professional cleaners as a condition of all their contracts. Approximately $450 was paid, the manager assuring me the tenants would incur their similar professional cleaning costs when departing.

A month into the lease, the tenants heard a whistling noise from the hot water cylinder, so turned the electrical switch and water supply off and notified the property manager, who arranged their plumber's inspection. The plumber turned the water supply on and determined a valve was failing, for which he later left to obtain the replacement part. While the plumber was away, the removed and reattached valve either failed or detached, causing a minor flood as the cylinder drained with the water supply left on which seeped into and caused a lower bedroom's ceiling section to crack and fall and similar plaster and paint damages to that bedroom wall, until the tenant heard the rushing water and again turned off the water supply awaiting the plumber's return. I was only notified when I received an approximate $850 billing for the plumbers call and valve replacement, with the property manager's 5% added fee. When I asked the property manager about who should bear the costs of the ceiling and wall plaster repairs (estimated to be $2,000), after the plumber refused, I was told the problem is mine and my insurer's as the property manager also said the damage was an accident and wouldn't have occurred if initially for the valve which was later replaced. When I was re-directed to the realty office's supervisor, I was immediately told I was being "anal" about the matter, which added unprofessional conduct was enough for me to find a replacement professional property manager.

The second property manager reassured me of their more professional handlings, but again, with contracted quarterly inspections that I had to repeatedly remind were a month overdue and reassurances all were well, when later incidents revealed otherwise, I came to regret the NZ move and home purchase. The tenants suddenly and secretly vacated the home, while still residing there a month after the June 2011 quake, despite three months left in their second requested 6 mo lease renewal. The tenants left no keys, took the garage door opener, left unwanted furniture and trash behind and ceased all rent payments before they moved, but later requested from the property manager their bond return. The later inspection also revealed an unauthorized family member had also been residing there for several months with his unauthorized dog and numerous scratches to doors and floors were debated, in addition to other damages, failed required cleanings and lease entitlements.

A Tenancy Tribunal hearing was first scheduled a month later for the bond return. The tenants only explanation for having secretly obtained another house lease and abandoning the house were their young childrens future quake and access fears and the temporary lack of public services over which I had no control and which services were not even included in their rent payment, which were less than what other quake residents had to endure. Surprisingly, the Tenancy Tribunal ruled in their favour, holding that the substantial event allowed the lease to be broken, and as I was deemed to be financially stronger, I should endure the losses. The Tribunal also indicated I should have reduced the agreed rental rate after the quakes, though the Tribunal agreed my mortgage rate did not decrease and I had no control over the temporary post-quake public service inconveniences which involved neither breach nor failure of my landlord duties. By fully ignoring the remaining lease term, the lease tenants enjoyed a better result than a month-to-month tenant who would have had to at least pay one full month's term as sufficient notice and to allow me time to find a replacement tenant to reduce my future losses. The Tenancy Tribunal required the entire bond to be immediately returned, while indicating I needed to have another hearing to determine what damages I am entitled to by the tenants for the left condition and removal costs.

That second Tenancy Tribunal hearing, which was delayed by their scheduling for four months later!, was also shocking. Only a nominal fraction of the actual costs and losses was ordered to be paid by the tenants (e.g. only awarding the costs to obtain unreturned new door keys and replacement garage door openers and trash removal, while ignoring all cleaning costs and any costs for the unauthorized additional adult tenant, his dog and its damages to the house).

The property manager told me this is the usual shocking result. The Tenancy Tribunal always takes the side of the deemed "poorer" and bullied tenant while the landlord is deemed able to afford the losses, after all, the landlord can afford owning a home which presumably the poor tenants cannot.

Is this indicative of both NZ professional property managers and the Tenancy Tribunal? I'm interested in any shared experiences to better evaluate the realities of being a reluctant landlord in NZ.