Conrad Goodger - Rent Ezi

MY STORY ABOUT QUEENSTOWN MBIE
THE MISLEADING "FACTS" - READ ON FOR THE FULL STORY

Addressing Misconceptions from Media Reports Following Tenancy Tribunal Decision

This statement is a factual response to recent media articles regarding the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision in my case. These articles, fuelled by sensationalism, have painted a misleading picture that overlooks the vital community service my businesses, Rent Ezi Limited and Nice View Limited, have provided to Queenstown’s workforce for three decades.

Refuting the "Slumlord" and "Slum" Narrative

The media’s characterization of me as a “slumlord” and my properties as a “slum” is a gross misrepresentation of my business practices. By definition, a slumlord minimizes maintenance and intimidates tenants to maximize profit. My business has always operated on the opposite principle: providing clean, safe, and affordable accommodation as a community-focused solution to Queenstown’s severe housing crisis.

For 30 years, thousands of essential workers have relied on my properties because they offer cost-effective rooms in a market where traditional rentals are often out of reach. These are not unsanitary conditions; they are communities where tenants are happy, and any problems brought to my attention are addressed quickly. To equate this model with slum-lording is to misunderstand the realities of our local housing market.

The Reality of the Tenancy Tribunal Case

The media’s characterization of me as a “slumlord” and my properties as a “slum” is a gross misrepresentation of my business practices. By definition, a slumlord minimizes maintenance and intimidates tenants to maximize profit. My business has always operated on the opposite principle: providing clean, safe, and affordable accommodation as a community-focused solution to Queenstown’s severe housing crisis.
For 30 years, thousands of essential workers have relied on my properties because they offer cost-effective rooms in a market where traditional rentals are often out of reach. These are not unsanitary conditions; they are communities where tenants are happy, and any problems brought to my attention are addressed quickly. To equate this model with slum-lording is to misunderstand the realities of our local housing market.

Refuting the "Slumlord" and "Slum" Narrative

This statement is a factual response to recent media articles regarding the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision in my case. These articles, fuelled by sensationalism, have painted a misleading picture that overlooks the vital community service my businesses, Rent Ezi Limited and Nice View Limited, have provided to Queenstown’s workforce for three decades.

Addressing Misconceptions from Media Reports Following Tenancy Tribunal Decision

1. 117 Tenants: The figure of 117 “affected” tenants is misleading. This number represents tenancies over a 12-month period, not the number of people living in the houses at one time. A significant number of these tenants stayed for a short time and were unaware of any proceedings. The vast majority of my tenants stay much longer, with many residing in my properties for years.
2. The Origin of the Case: This six-year investigation was not initiated by a groundswell of tenant complaints. In fact, only one tenant made a formal complaint in the tribunal, and that was after a dispute over a bond refund that was promptly resolved and some quabbles that person had with some flatmates. This minor issue became a pretext for an expansive investigation, which I maintain was a “fishing expedition.”
3. The Fine Breakdown: The total fine of $81,050 was for largely technical and administrative breaches, not for malicious or intentional neglect. For example, a significant portion of the fine was for failing to include healthy homes documents within the individual tenancy agreements themselves. However, these documents were displayed prominently in the living room of every property and also emailed to most tenants. The adjudicator’s decision to impose an average fine of just $104 per tenant for this breach, far below the maximum possible penalty of $7,200 for a serious health and safety breach, acknowledges this mitigating context.

Addressing Specific Allegations

1. Safety and Compliance: I have spent years working with regulatory bodies like the QLDC and FENZ to ensure my properties are safe and compliant. All my properties have multiple working smoke alarms and up-to-date accepted fire and evacuation plans where applicable. The Tribunal's findings on these issues were the result of a multi-year effort to achieve compliance, not a record of wilful neglect.
2. “Unlawful Dwellings” and Living Arrangements: The Tribunal’s decision did not find that my properties were “unlawful dwellings” in the sense of being unfit for human habitation. The allegations related to partitioned rooms were a result of temporary cubicles installed during COVID-19 to ensure essential isolation, which were later removed. The caravans and bus were legitimate, self-contained, and safe living spaces—no different from the countless campervans legally occupied in Queenstown, except that my tenants had access to proper sanitation and amenities.
3. Overcrowding: The statement that a tenant described sharing a room with four others is a non-factual statement by MBIE. In my 30 years as a landlord, I have never housed five people in a single room. Our maximum is three persons in a very large room, and even that is a rare occurrence.
4. Misinformation in the Media: The newspaper's claim that tenants were "housed in a garage" is fiction. The Tenancy Tribunal order does not state this, and it is a blatant falsehood designed to sensationalize the story.

The Real Public Harm: Government Overreach

The true public harm in this case has been caused not by me, but by the actions of MBIE’s Dunedin office. Their six-year investigation, a clear overreach of power, has cost the taxpayer millions and created a climate of fear that has exacerbated Queenstown's housing crisis. The negative publicity from this case will only worsen the situation, scare away other responsible landlords and leading to more workers being forced into illegal camping situations. It is a testament to the lack of helping ability of the Tenancy Services, which seems to prioritize punishment over collaboration.

I am committed to achieving 100% genuine compliance and will continue to provide a vital service to the Queenstown community. The Tribunal's decision, while disappointing, will not deter me from this purpose, but it does highlight the urgent need for a more balanced and fair regulatory approach. Absolutely. Here's your defence statement, professionally written and with all your key points included:

1. Administrative Breaches and Data Security: The Tribunal’s order referenced breaches related to unlawful clauses and a failure to provide mandatory statements.4 I accept that some of my past tenancy agreements contained technical and administrative errors. However, these were a result of an outdated and complex system that was unfortunately compromised by a major cyber-attack in July 2023. I have since transitioned to a new platform and have worked diligently to ensure all tenants have been supplied with full, compliant documents. This demonstrates that any past non-compliance was an administrative oversight, not an intentional or malicious act.
   
2. Exemplary Damages: The adjudicator correctly stated that a lack of tenant complaints does not excuse a breach of the Act.5 However, the proposed fines appear disproportionate to the actual harm. The single affected tenant who attended the hearing had a largely unsubstantiated complaint, and many of the fines relate to tenants who have had no issues and were unaware of the proceedings. Exemplary damages are meant to be a deterrent for malicious and intentional breaches, not for administrative errors that have since been corrected. 
   

Questions of Public Interest and Misappropriated Fines

The core of my concern is not with being held accountable for my mistakes, but with the process and the outcome of this lengthy and costly investigation. This has been a six-year campaign initiated by one Tenancy Services investigator, Chris Macaulay, and has resulted in an exorbitant amount of fines. None of these fines will go to the tenants who were allegedly affected; instead, they will be used by MBIE to fund more investigations. This raises a critical question of transparency: Where does this money go? Does it truly help tenants, or does it simply fuel a cycle of punitive enforcement that adds to the burden on taxpayers and disincentivizes other landlords from providing much-needed housing?

The unfortunate outcome of this investigation is that it has had a negative impact on my ability to manage my properties and provide housing in the Queenstown community. I am committed to continuing to provide a valuable service, but this will only be possible if the regulatory environment is fair, transparent, and focused on genuine solutions rather than punitive actions.

There is a major lack of supporting 'help' for landlords in the Tenancy Services culture. They are predominantly employed to catch and punish landlords, without any direct and personal help. Genuine support and guidance are not revenue generators for them. 

Conrad Joseph Lawrence Goodger