Parry Jones, now of Wellington, said he was in a ‘‘state of shock’’ when he arrived at his vacated Kew rental to find the house ‘‘completely ruined’’.
‘‘Usually tenants are pretty good, but when it goes wrong, it can go really wrong,’’ he said.
As a result of the ordeal he had given up on being a landlord, sold the home and was urging others to proceed with caution when renting through an agency.
‘‘We’d lived there for nearly 20 years.
‘‘And it was just completely trashed.’’
Mr Jones felt let down by Property Brokers, which he said failed to adequately vet the tenant or conduct regular inspections.
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the former tenant to pay the couple more than $3000, but Mr Jones said the figure did not cover the costs incurred and doubted it would be paid in full.
When approached by the Otago Daily Times, Property Brokers did not accept the damage and losses arose from failure to monitor or manage the tenancy, but offered an apology for the ‘‘distress caused by the outcome of this tenancy’’.
‘‘We do recognise that the outcome has been deeply disappointing for the Joneses, particularly given the limitations of the recovery process,’’ property management general manager David Faulkner said.
‘‘We’re not property investors.
‘‘This was our family home. We foolishly left it completely furnished,’’ Mr Jones said.
In April last year, the Tenancy Tribunal ordered the former tenant, who the ODT has chosen not to name, to pay Mr Jones and his wife $3329.86, via Property Brokers.
This covered missing or damaged chattels — including a side table sold by the tenant — rubbish removal and repairs following the tenancy, which ran from late January to early December 2024.
After repairing the property, the Joneses sold it in April 2025 — the poor experience with the tenant and Property Brokers hastening the couple’s decision to sell, Mr Jones said.
He had been given a verbal apology from the company but felt a written apology and an offer of compensation would also be appropriate.
‘‘It just seemed like a completely toothless position we were in.’’
Mr Faulkner said the company acknowledged Mr Jones’ frustration with the ‘‘ongoing and complex’’ situation.
‘‘They placed their trust in us to manage their property and we understand how difficult it has been to see that investment affected in this way,’’ he said.
The company was satisfied it had met contractual and statutory obligations — including sharing inspection reports with the landlord every three months and pursuing recovery when the tenancy finished.
Weekly payments of $30 stopped in October last year when the former tenant was deemed self-employed, Mr Faulkner said.
Property Brokers had been in regular contact with Mr Jones about recovery options, which now fell under the civil debt recovery process, he said.
The former tenant told the ODT she did not accept the house was left in poor condition; she believed it was largely ‘‘normal wear-and-tear’’.
‘‘I think a lot of the blame has been put on to me when it’s actually been a let-down from the company.’’
Payments had stopped as her business did not meet the income threshold for repayments, she said.
If her business met the threshold, payments would resume.
