PHOTO: Prudence Morrall is the sole director of Good Girls Property Management Limited.
A Christchurch property management company headed by a former reality television personality has been ordered to pay $5,877 after admitting multiple breaches of New Zealand’s tenancy laws.
Good Girls Property Management Limited accepted that it breached the Residential Tenancies Act across 20 properties under its management.
The company’s sole director, Prudence Morrall, previously appeared on TVNZ’s Renters, a programme following property managers and tenants around New Zealand.
The Tenancy Tribunal order followed an investigation by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team.
The breaches included missing legally required statements from tenancy agreements, maintenance delays, unenforceable contract clauses, an unlawful rent increase and the improper termination of a room-by-room tenancy.
But the most important part of the decision extends well beyond one Christchurch business.
The tribunal has delivered a blunt warning to the entire property management industry: blaming an uncooperative landlord will not protect a property manager when tenants suffer or the law is broken.
Breaches identified across 20 properties
The case involved tenancy arrangements across 20 separate rental properties managed by Good Girls Property Management.
The company admitted that some tenancy agreements did not contain required information about insulation, insurance and compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
These statements are not optional administrative extras.
They are intended to ensure tenants understand the condition of the property, the insurance arrangements that may affect them and whether the home meets minimum health requirements.
The tribunal also awarded compensation relating to maintenance work that was delayed or refused.
Evidence showed that the property management company had informed some owners that repairs or maintenance were necessary. However, those owners reportedly resisted or postponed the work because of the cost.
That placed the property manager in a difficult commercial position—but not one that removed its legal responsibilities.
“The landlord wouldn’t approve it” is not a defence
Property managers are employed by landlords, but they also operate within a heavily regulated industry.
Their obligation is not simply to follow every instruction received from a property owner. They must understand tenancy law and avoid participating in unlawful conduct.
The tribunal found that maintaining a relationship with a landlord client could not take priority over compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act.
Brett Wilson, national manager of MBIE’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team, said property managers must keep clear records and be prepared to end a client relationship when an owner refuses to correct known breaches.
That creates an uncomfortable but necessary choice.
If a landlord refuses to undertake legally required maintenance, the property manager cannot simply pass the refusal on to the tenant and continue collecting management fees.
At some point, the manager must insist that the work is completed—or walk away.
Unlawful rent increase and unenforceable clauses
The tribunal also found that the company imposed an unlawful rent increase in one tenancy.
Eight tenancy agreements reportedly contained clauses that could not legally be enforced.
Tenancy agreements can establish reasonable expectations for tenants, but they cannot override rights provided by legislation.
A clause does not become lawful simply because it has been typed into an agreement and signed.
Professional property managers are expected to know the difference between a legitimate tenancy condition and a provision that conflicts with the Residential Tenancies Act.
For tenants, however, challenging an invalid clause can be intimidating.
Many renters assume that anything written into their agreement must be binding. Others may fear that questioning their property manager could affect future references or their ability to remain in the home.
That power imbalance is exactly why compliance matters.
Tenant forced out without lawful grounds
One of the most serious findings concerned the termination of a room-by-room tenancy.
The company treated the arrangement as though it were a boarding-house tenancy, which can involve different legal rights and termination procedures.
However, the tribunal found that Morrall had doubts about whether that classification was correct and understood that the tenancy should not have been ended in the manner used.
The tenant was therefore required to leave without proper legal grounds.
Disputes involving boarding houses, flatmates, room-by-room rentals and ordinary residential tenancies can become complicated. But uncertainty does not give a property manager permission to select whichever classification provides the easiest route to termination.
When the legal position is unclear, professional advice should be obtained before action is taken.
The consequences of getting it wrong are not merely technical.
For a tenant, an unlawful termination can mean losing their home.
Is $5,877 enough?
The company was ordered to pay a total of $5,877, including exemplary damages and compensation.
That figure may prompt debate.
On one hand, the order provides accountability and sends a clear message to the industry.
On the other, the breaches involved 20 properties, delayed or refused repairs, defective tenancy documentation and a tenant being forced out without lawful grounds.
Spread across 20 properties, the total payment averages less than $294 per property.
Critics may question whether that is a meaningful deterrent for a commercial property management business.
If the financial consequences of breaking tenancy law are lower than the income earned from managing the affected properties, some will argue the enforcement system is not strong enough.
The reputational impact may ultimately be more damaging than the financial order.
The reality television connection
Morrall’s previous involvement with Renters adds another dimension to the case.
Reality programmes about property management often present managers as decisive professionals balancing the competing interests of landlords and tenants.
They can also help turn participants into recognisable public figures.
That visibility brings additional scrutiny when the business later appears before the Tenancy Tribunal.
Appearing on television does not establish guilt, expertise or professional standing. But when somebody has been publicly presented as an experienced industry operator, consumers are entitled to expect a strong understanding of the law.
This case shows that profile and experience offer no protection when compliance failures reach the tribunal.
A warning to landlords as well
The decision should not be interpreted as placing all responsibility on property managers.
Landlords remain responsible for ensuring their rental properties comply with the law.
Hiring a management company does not allow an owner to ignore maintenance, Healthy Homes obligations or the rights of tenants.
Property managers may coordinate the tenancy, communicate with renters and arrange contractors, but they cannot force an owner to approve every repair.
Owners who reject necessary work because of cost place tenants at risk and expose themselves and their managers to legal action.
A landlord treating maintenance as optional should not expect a professional management company to protect them from the consequences.
Property managers may need to fire clients
The most significant lesson from the case is that a professional property manager must sometimes refuse a landlord’s instructions.
In serious situations, that could mean terminating the management agreement.
That may cost the agency income in the short term, but continuing to manage a non-compliant property creates much larger risks.
Managers should document repair recommendations, owner responses, legal advice, tenant complaints and every attempt made to resolve a breach.
If the owner continues to refuse, the manager must decide whether the relationship can legally and ethically continue.
Turning a blind eye while continuing to collect fees is not professional neutrality.
It is a decision.
The Property Noise view
New Zealand’s property management industry handles billions of dollars worth of residential assets and makes decisions that directly affect where people live.
Yet entry into the sector does not carry the same licensing regime applied to real estate agents.
That remains difficult to justify.
A property manager may control rent collection, inspection processes, maintenance requests, tenancy documentation and communications that determine whether a family remains in its home.
Mistakes—or deliberate shortcuts—can have enormous consequences.
The Good Girls Property Management decision reinforces a principle that should already be obvious: the client paying the management fee is not always right.
When a landlord refuses to meet their legal obligations, a property manager must protect the integrity of the tenancy process, document the refusal and, when necessary, end the relationship.
Tenants should not be forced to live with unresolved problems because an owner does not want to pay.
They should not be bound by unlawful clauses.
And they should never lose their home because a professional manager chose the wrong legal classification despite having doubts.
The $5,877 order may not be enormous, but the message is.
A property manager cannot outsource responsibility to the landlord when the law is breached on their watch.
SOURCE: STUFF