According to the decision, people describing themselves as bailiffs or debt collectors visited the property several times between July 2025 and the end of the tenancy in March 2026 looking for Zhou and his wife.
Evidence showed a person claiming to be a bailiff had begun taping off or sealing the premises in what appeared to be an attempt to repossess it. There was also a visit from a property valuer, apparently acting on behalf of one of Zhou’s creditors.
The tribunal heard there were at least four such incidents while the tenants were home. Neighbours also reported seeing people knocking on the door and peering through windows when the property was empty.
In another incident, a debt collector obtained a phone number from a package left outside the house and sent a text message.
The tenants described the visits as frightening and said they sometimes had to spend considerable time convincing visitors they were not hiding Zhou inside the property.
Complaints to property manager
The property was managed by an agent for Residential RE Ltd, trading as Bayleys RPM.
The tribunal heard the tenants first raised concerns about the visits with the agency in July 2025 and continued to do so over the following months.
Email correspondence from December 2025 to March 2026 showed the agency was aware of the problem and that the situation was causing distress.
In a December 19, 2025 email, a senior manager told the tenants the matter relating to Zhou was private and that no speculation should be made about his personal circumstances.
The email said the agency had instructed Zhou and his solicitor to redirect inquiries and noted the Privacy Act prevented disclosure of personal information without authority.
The tenants told the tribunal they interpreted the response to mean they should not raise the issue again.
The agency said it had instructed the tenants to refer debt collectors to them so Zhou’s details could be passed on, and denied knowing collectors were still visiting after December 2025.
Tribunal findings
Henry found the ongoing visits amounted to an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
While the agency had taken some steps to address the issue, she said it could have done more.
Henry said the most logical solution would have been to ensure debt collectors had Zhou’s correct physical address.
“The tenant would have been able to deal with the visits by providing those searching for Mr Zhou with his correct contact information,” she said.
While the agency could not disclose Zhou’s details without his permission, Henry said it could have required him to authorise that disclosure or stop acting for him.
As it failed to take that action, they therefore did not take reasonable steps to prevent the interference, she said.
The agency argued it should not be held liable because it could not control landlords’ financial affairs or disclose private information without consent. It also said Zhou had been overseas for most of the tenancy, something it was unaware of.
Henry rejected those arguments and ruled the landlord and property manager were jointly liable.
The tenants sought a substantial rent reduction but Henry found that level of compensation was not justified when compared with similar cases.
Instead, she awarded $1500 for stress and inconvenience and $1500 in general damages.
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.
Join NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.