Nick Hoogwerf and Donna Miers, who have previously been in the spotlight for bad landlord practices, are being investigated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
A mother-and-son landlord pair with a history of tenant complaints and conduct described as “nefarious” are under investigation.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has been investigating the alleged poor landlord practices of Nick Hoogwerf and Donna Miers for about a year, after further claims they have provided sub-standard rentals and failed to lodge bonds.
Separately, Hoogwerf, who was previously struck off as a real estate agent, has been the subject of fresh complaints to the Tenancy Tribunal from aggrieved tenants.
Relating to the investigation, MBIE’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) confirmed it has received four complaints regarding the duo since March 2024 – two relating to the pair, and one individual complaint each.
One of the complaints relates to a property in Chapel St, Greymouth, which Miers purchased under the business name Chapel Corner in 2019.
The commercial property was divided into eight units and there were two residential units next door. Hoogwerf acted as the landlord.
The company was originally taken to the tribunal by a resident at the property who claimed it was uninhabitable.
In a ruling at the time, tribunal adjudicator Ross Armstrong described the situation as “a sad case”, saying the tenant had been persuaded to sign a tenancy agreement for accommodation in Greymouth that was well below acceptable standards.
Armstrong said the property did not resemble how it had been advertised online. The tenant, who was not living in Greymouth at the time, had been unable to inspect it beforehand. The dwelling was later deemed unsanitary and uninhabitable.
Despite the claims, the tribunal dismissed the case after repeated attempts to contact the tenant, as well as Hoogwerf and Miers, received no response.
Armstrong said the tenant possibly chose not to continue, given the low likelihood of recovering compensation, adding that the mother and son “have a history of nefarious conduct”.
NZME has previously reported the pair’s misconduct as landlords, including issues with not lodging bonds or repaying bonds, and failing to meet Healthy Home standards.
One report outlined how the pair were ordered to pay more than $30,000 to Auckland retiree Don Oliver after renting his Pt Chevalier property, “renovating” the interior without permission, and then subletting the property at twice the rent to a vulnerable grandmother – all without Oliver’s knowledge.
Another detailed how Miers breached her obligations as a landlord when she rented out a Timaru property plagued by black mould, holes in the floor and a toilet that leaked sewage.
In that case, Miers also failed to lodge the tenant’s bond, with the tribunal describing her as taking “a very casual approach to complying with legal obligations”.
There have been eight tribunal decisions released since 2023 in which Hoogwerf is the respondent to claims from unhappy tenants. Meirs was also the respondent in some.
Every decision stated Hoogwerf did not attend the hearings despite the tribunal’s repeated attempts to contact him.
When speaking to NZME, Hoogwerf said, despite his history before the tribunal, he was “fit to be a landlord”.
Asked about the pending investigation, he said he was aware it was taking place and would participate in any hearings he was required to attend.
Miers told NZME she knew “concerns have been raised” but had not been advised of any formal findings or determinations against her by MBIE.
“Any suggestion of wrongdoing at this stage would be premature and potentially misleading,” she said.
“Complaints in tenancy matters are not uncommon and do not, in themselves, establish fault.
“I am happy to co-operate with any appropriate process but I will not comment further on incomplete or unverified matters.”
Three of the four complaints were still being investigated by TCIT. Investigations lead Brett Wilson could not comment on how long the probe would take, or what enforcement action the pair potentially faced.
The fourth complaint did not meet the threshold for TCIT to take enforcement action. The tenant has now taken that complaint to the Tenancy Tribunal.
Other tenants who recently turned to the tribunal with complaints about Hoogwerf include Auckland woman Ziggy Humberstone and her flatmate, after they found their bond had not been lodged.
While the tribunal has since ruled Hoogwerf had to pay them $4000 for the bond, they said he has yet to pay up.
Their North Shore tenancy ended after a couple of months in 2024.
The pair said they realised they may have got themselves into a tricky rental situation when they read media reports about his conduct as a landlord after signing their tenancy agreement.
They said the agreement had Hoogwerf’s business as the named landlord, and they would not have signed with him if they knew his history.
“From the moment I moved in, the experience was extremely difficult,” Humberstone said.
“Because this was my first flat after moving out of home, I initially assumed this was simply how flatting worked. I later realised that this was not normal.”
Humberstone said the Birkenhead home was in poor condition when they moved in, which she believed breached the Healthy Homes Standard.
Windows had noticeable gaps, allowing air to come through and making the rooms extremely cold, she claimed.
The flatmates were told Hoogwerf was living in the downstairs unit; however, after moving in, they claimed it was being used as an Airbnb and had multiple instances of people entering their house without their knowledge.
“In one instance, a child ran directly through our house.”
The situation became more concerning when she found the flat’s bond had not been lodged.
“Once we realised the bond had not been lodged, we emailed Nick multiple times asking him to submit it. He responded by saying he didn’t think we would be staying long and that he would simply refund the bond when we moved out.”
They left the tenancy two months later, but two years on, they were still trying to get their bond back.
While their claim to the tribunal only focused on the bond, they indicated they were still considering taking action about the alleged Healthy Homes breaches.
Annie Binstead also took Hoogwerf and Miers to the tribunal after the pair did not return her bond following her tenancy.
She met Hoogwerf in 2024 through Miers, her previous landlord, when he arranged a tenancy for her on Miers’ behalf, which Hoogwerf went on to manage aspects of.
Binstead said her experience with Hoogwerf as her landlord was “concerning”.
“He was living upstairs in what operated as a ‘boarding house’, where there were often confrontations and arguments involving him and other occupants,” she claimed.
Binstead had gone to the tribunal to recoup her $5000 bond after her tenancy with the pair ended. Again, they had not lodged it.
She was successful in her claim; however, she was also still waiting for payment, with the debt now referred to the Ministry of Justice’s Collections Unit.
NZME has sighted a registrar-issued warrant against Miers after she failed to attend a hearing related to the unpaid order.
Miers told NZME she was out of town the day of the hearing, which she claimed the ministry knew.
Tracey Baguley, of the Ministry of Justice, said a civil warrant to arrest can be executed by a bailiff or the police.
However, it does not get filed with the police, as bailiffs were the primary enforcement officers for civil matters.
“If the debtor against who the warrant to arrest has been issued appears at court voluntarily, the warrant will be withdrawn,” she said.
Binstead said she had concerns about the mother and son operating as landlords.
“Tenants rely on landlords to follow legal obligations, particularly around bond handling and tenancy compliance,” she told NZME.
“In my view, the situation highlights the need for stronger accountability to protect tenants.”
In response, Miers took issue with Binstead, claiming she had a cat at the property without permission, and there were issues with rubbish and rodents.
These allegations have been put to Binstead, who hasn’t responded.
“I’m happy to engage constructively once the administrative aspects are resolved,” Miers said.
When speaking with NZME, Hoogwerf rejected allegations made by Humberstone and Binstead that were not heard by the tribunal, describing them as “broad and loaded”.
“The accounts you refer to appear to come from former tenants involved in disputed matters, including rent arrears, damage and other tenancy issues,” he claimed.
“Their versions are neither neutral nor complete, and any attempt to present them as established fact would be misleading.”
Despite Hoogwerf’s claims against the former tenants, he has not made an application to the tribunal for resolution.
He said this was because “it is not always an effective or commercially sensible exercise in every case”.
“In our experience, some tenants have left owing substantial rent arrears, caused extensive damage, or vacated in circumstances where there was little realistic prospect of recovery,” he alleged.
“In those situations, obtaining an order is one thing, but actually recovering money from a tenant who has disappeared, cannot be located, or has no means to pay is another.
“So while some issues do go through the formal process, not every matter results in a practical recovery, even where we have clearly been left out of pocket.
“What is the point of spending time and waiting five to eight weeks waiting for a hearing, obtaining an order that has very little chance of ever being paid? Instead a landlord is better to spend the time being practical, to clean up the mess and re-tenant the property.”
Going forward, Hoogwerf’s former tenant, Humberstone, hoped the MBIE investigation would result in “appropriate action” being taken.
“I can only hope that appropriate action is taken and that victims like us are finally able to receive the justice we deserve.”
Wilson, of TCIT, told NZME there was no provision in New Zealand law to ban a person from being a landlord.
“If the Tenancy Tribunal makes an order against a person under Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act on the ground that the person has committed an unlawful act, the tribunal may, if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, make an order restraining the person from committing a further act of the same kind.”
Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka said the Government expected landlords to meet their legal obligations.
“Where they don’t, there are already enforcement mechanisms in place, including Tenancy Tribunal action and investigations by MBIE.
“The Government is focused on ensuring the rental market works properly for both tenants and landlords, with clear expectations, consistent enforcement, and consequences where standards are not met.
“Work is underway to strengthen confidence in the system and improve accountability across the rental sector, and more will be outlined shortly.”
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.