A story came across my desk this week. Briefly, a couple of tenants secured money orders from the Tenancy Tribunal against their landlord. But despite their efforts to enforce the orders, they have yet to see a single cent.

Suggestions were made that this is a landlord who mocks the system by flaunting the law and judicial orders. Bad, bad man. Poor, poor tenants. Honestly, the undercurrent of the piece may as well be an embossed invitation for the public to join in on the chorus that sings for all landlords’ demise.

At first, I was mildly amused. I didn’t know I could be quoted in a story I was neither approached for, asked about, or invited to comment on. But there they are: my name, face and words. Context be damned.

As the day went on, my mood soured. Because fair, in this case, most certainly isn’t fair. On the face of it, the story marches to the trite drumbeat of yet another ill-gotten victory by an undeserving landlord. But at its core it sings a very different tune.

It isn’t about wiley landlords thumbing their noses at the law, nor is it blatant speculation of the effectiveness of the tribunal. This story is a sobering reminder of the (frankly, sorry) state of civil enforcement in New Zealand. And before you break out the harmonica, I will say this: the problem swings both ways.

As indulgent as it is to exploit the victim-and-villain narrative, the piece conveniently whistles past the broader systemic issue that unites landlords and tenants in frustrating harmony. Civil enforcement is a shared challenge that weighs heavily and confounds both sides. The responsibility for enforcement falls entirely on the judgment creditor, who must navigate a convoluted process filled with roadblocks, costs, and dead ends.

Token payments

For landlords, it’s the reality they’ve contended with for years: accepting token weekly payments from defaulting tenants because the alternative (a drawn-out, expensive civil enforcement process) feels like a losing game. They do this not out of leniency but out of necessity. A $14,000 money order isn’t a bank cheque, but if you take $30 a week and keep those fingers and toes crossed super tight, you may get a third of that back in three years.

For tenants, encountering this system for the first time is a brutal lesson on how hollow the wheel of justice can be.

If civil enforcement remains this broken, how can we expect court orders to have teeth? The problem isn’t just about holding a few bad landlords accountable; it’s about a system that’s failing everyone (landlords and tenants) by rendering decisions effectively unenforceable.

Until we address these fundamental flaws, we’ll continue to see stories like the one highlighted this week: stories of frustration, injustice, and uncollected debts. But make no mistake: tenants are no more Jean Valjean than their landlords Javert. Anyone can find themselves on the wrong side of an unenforceable order. The real tragedy is that our system’s failures pit landlords and tenants against each other when, in reality, we are all trapped in the same broken machine.

I’m not one to naysay Miss Swift, but we can’t shake it off anymore. Civil enforcement in NZ is overdue for reform, and it’s a conversation that needs to involve everyone affected by its inefficiency. We need solutions that make judgments and orders meaningful and enforceable, whether you’re a tenant seeking restitution or a landlord trying to recover unpaid rent. Anything less is a disservice to all parties involved.