Tribunals and tribulations: Homeless mother’s 18-month fight with ex-landlord

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Kirsty Maree found herself living in a tent and locked in a bitter dispute with her landlord. He’s refused to pay ordered damages, appealing the decision and claiming ‘defamation’ - and experts warn it’s symptomatic of growing challenges with the Tenancy Tribunal. Jonathan Killick investigates.

A campervan in a suburban parking lot was not the home that Kirsty Maree wanted to provide for her young children, but it was an upgrade on the tent they had been living in.

“It felt so crowded inside. I had no space of my own, but it was shelter,” says Maree.

Each day, when the kids came back from school, she would rush them inside the camper so as not to draw attention from the surrounding public.

The young family had already been moved on twice, having to drive around until they could find a quiet spot to hunker down.

“We were washing in public toilets, which is grotty I know, but we had bought soap just to splash on our faces and feel a bit fresher …. It was definitely an eye-opener but we did what we had to to survive.”

It was a situation Maree never imagined she would find herself in, but life took a surprise turn when their three-bedroom rental in Waiuku was condemned by council inspectors.

Little did she know the resulting dispute would drag on for 18 months, with her former landlord now appealing the issue to the District Court, where he is pursuing tens of thousands in damages.

The lengthy proceedings are set against a backdrop of ballooning wait times at the Tenancy Tribunal. Experts tell the Star-Times it raises the age-old question of whether “justice delayed is justice denied”, and warn that the system can be onerous for laypeople, especially when the circumstances being heard are complicated.

Maree’s former landlord Paramjit Mehami, meanwhile, says the issues began after he had been developing a section out the front of the property into terraced housing and a dairy.

A building dispute had halted works, and when council inspectors visited the site and found a partially completed retaining wall was at risk of collapse, they deemed Maree’s home too dangerous to be inhabited, and she was accordingly issued with notice to vacate the house.

Four days before Christmas, Maree found herself with no home and nowhere to go, so she set up a blue tarpaulin tent on the lawn to provide her children with a roof.

“I had promised them we would go camping that year, but not like this,” she told the Sunday Star-Times at the time.

“I had been trying not to let them see me upset, but Christmas Day just wasn’t the same and I couldn’t pretend or put up a happy face.”

Her tenure in the tent ultimately came to an end when Mehami trespassed her from the property, she says. She acknowledges things had become “heated” between them.

Mehami tells the Star-Times that he felt that Maree had been rude to him over the eviction.

“I helped her [Maree] always. She had small children and had a hard time, so we allowed her to stay in the garage without charging any rent.”

“She thinks I’m a slumlord? Why are you talking that rubbish? … I’ve been living here for 25 years. My son is a doctor,” he says.

Mehami says he is also a victim in all this, having been “ripped off” by a builder who failed to complete his development.

He lost half a million dollars when the half-completed structures had to be demolished, he says.

Sarina Gibbon of Tenancy Advisory, a consultancy for landlords and tenants, warns that it’s never a good idea to try to develop a section with tenants in situ.

“Don’t. Just don’t. It’s like renovating your kitchen in the middle of a dinner party, someone is going to get burnt.”

“Don’t go messing with someone else’s roof just so you can keep the cash coming in.”

Maree says while she feels the living conditions she had to endure were bad, the real indignity has been trying to get justice through the Tenancy Tribunal.

She first applied in January 2024 for exemplary damages from her landlord for the costs involved with unexpectedly losing her home. It began an 18-month journey which still hasn’t been resolved despite a ruling finally being issued by an adjudicator in May this year.

Maree says there were various delays caused by a tribunal translator not showing up to hearings, and Mehami requesting postponements for personal reasons.

“The time it has taken gives me a lack of confidence in the system … I don’t feel like it’s justice.”

Angela Maynard of the Tenants Protection Association says it’s the longest-running case she’s heard of.

“When an adjudicator reserves their decision, they are supposed to make a ruling within a month, but that’s not always happening.”

Maynard says there has been a flurry of tenants seeking advice following the Government’s reintroduction of 90-day ‘no cause’ terminations, and it has put pressure on support organisations.

“There’s no security of tenure now … it’s happened to her [Maree] at a very bad time. This country needs a big wake-up call.”

Figures released to the Star-Times show the average wait time for a hearing at the Tenancy Tribunal has grown in the last six months to just over nine weeks. That’s up on eight weeks in February.

Ministry of Justice tribunal group manager Jacquelyn Shannon says the tribunal aims to provide a “less formal, faster and more cost-effective alternative to the court system”.

However, wait times can vary, as matters involving ongoing tenancies or threats to personal safety and property are prioritised.

Other factors include the complexity of the claim and the length of the hearing and availability of courtrooms, Shannon says. There have been 7421 cases heard in the six months to May.

New rules introduced in March allowing adjudicators to consider some cases “on the papers” without a hearing may improve wait times, but it’s too early to tell.

Sarina Gibbon says 16 months is an “intolerable wait” but she doesn’t believe that the tribunal system is broken.

“What is missing is bold, structural changes from the legislature and our political leadership to match the scale of our collective housing challenge.”

After six weeks of living in a campervan with no home and no hearing date, Maree says the novelty began to wear off for her children.

She was trying to avoid going into an emergency accommodation hotel, but with few available rentals in her community, she felt she had no choice but to do so.

“It [the motel] was infested with cockroaches, but we had a roof over our heads, beds, hot showers and we could do our washing.”

But, Maree didn’t know she would be living there for six months while trying to find a home suitable for her family in Waiuku’s scarce rental market. She says Work and Income was looking at shifting her out of her community, just to find her a home.

“I would be crying my eyes out saying ‘I’m not going to West Auckland, it’s not my area. That’s not where my kids go to school.’”

Fortunately, she’s now found a three-bedroom home in town. But, that doesn’t mean she’s been able to move on with her life.

While the tribunal issued its ruling in May, ordering landlord Mehami to “immediately” pay $3856.50, he has refused.

Maree was already disappointed with that figure, describing it as low given the emotional toll and costs of losing her home unexpectedly - now she faces potential additional costs, and a lot more time and effort, to seek to enforce the ruling and address his appeal.

“So many times I’ve wanted to flag it and say ‘never mind’. It’s taken a lot of mental strength to keep going, because I just want to move on.”

Sarina Gibbon says that enforcement is often a “rude awakening” for claimants even if they’re successful in the tribunal. She recommends that claimants use a professional to navigate the process.

“Civil enforcement is notoriously difficult and intimidating, especially for the average layperson. A money order is good for the ego but does nothing for the bank account if you don’t know how to enforce.”

Meanwhile, Mehami tells the Star-Times that not only is he refusing to pay Maree, he has decided to appeal, and seeks $32,809.70 from her.

Submissions lodged for an appeal in the Pukekohe District Court claim that he has been left “distressed” by the “tenant indulging in derogative remarks on Facebook”.

“She has called him thief, slumlord landlord, and someone who places himself above NZ laws,” the submissions say.

“[But], the landlord has created a niche for himself in New Zealand. He is the chairman of various temples of his community. He holds undisputed status for himself in New Zealand and overseas.”

Mehami submitted as evidence, screenshots of posts by Maree saying “the sad part is what you owe doesn’t come close to the harm you have caused … it will be a drop in the bucket for you, yet you still wanna be as tight as a nun’s hoo haa.”

The submissions go on to say: “These posts were read by the landlord’s community and were discussed at last Sunday’s temple gathering which tarnished the great image of the landlord.

“He is unable to recover from the shock and trauma which he had to undergo … although no price can be ascertained to this act, it will be only fair to award an amount of $10,000 as damages.”

Mehami, who rejects the substance of Maree’s social media posts about him, further submits that he had to spend $20,409 disposing of rubbish and making repairs to the house after Maree had left the property.

He submitted various photos, including a cracked tile, a damaged towel rail and various detritus down the side of the house. He says the garage doors, two windows and some paint work needed to be repaired.

Maree tells the Star-Times that in her opinion the claims are “laughable”. The house was built in 1915 and, after all, she says, how was she supposed to make repairs or clean the house when she had been ordered to leave?

Mehami responds: “This lady has made me sick [with stress]. But it doesn’t matter, the court can make a decision.”

While any court or tribunal hearing is never entirely predictable, both Gibbon and Maynard suggest that an appeal that brings forward “fresh claims” is unlikely to be successful.

Typically appeals are on “points of law rather than points of fact”, says Gibbon.

Nonetheless, for Maree it’s more waiting, and more worrying, about what her future will hold.

“Each day my life is depending on this - I’m waiting for this to happen so I can move on, and try to make plans in my head.”

The Star-Times asked Mehami whether he would compensate Maree as ordered if indeed his appeal is unsuccessful.

“Don’t ring me again. You can speak to my lawyer,” he says.

What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.