What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318305 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5318305?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318305?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318305?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318305 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5318305?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318305?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318305?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 15 Summermist Drive, Northpark, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318305 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The applications for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

The property management company and the owner both attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing and had advised the Tribunal that they would be overseas on the date of hearing.
On 28 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages and compensation in favour of the tenant.
On 3 November 2025, Zhicheng (Tim) Liu applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenancy was organized by a police officer, and that it was deliberate, malicious and sophisticated.
On 4 November 2025, John He of Barfoot and Thompson Limited (Highland Park) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the owner acted independently, Barfoot and Thompson were not involved in or responsible for the landlord’s conduct and Barfoot and Thompson’s management of the property ended on 10 August 2025.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Owner application

For the following reasons Zhicheng (Tim) Liu has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Zhicheng (Tim) Liu is the owner of the premises. He claims that a police officer (Officer S) organised the tenants to rent the house. He believes that Officer S was involved in this tenancy because something happened every month which he said was not normal for a tenancy. The owner says that Officer S lives in a house opposite to where he lives.
The owner has not produced any evidence to support the claim that Officer S is involved with this tenancy, or even if he did whether it is relevant.
The owner referred to the tenants luring him to commit crimes by offering him a drink of ginger beer, by leaving the door slightly open while the tenant showered at 2pm in the afternoon, the tenant using an excessive number of tampons which caused the drain to block and by Officer S asking the plumbing company to delay the unblocking of the drain and not using the correct tools.
None of these are grounds for a rehearing. The owner’s application for rehearing is dismissed. Barfoot and Thompson application
For the following reasons John He of Barfoot and Thompson (Highland Park) has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The property management company submitted that the management of this property ended on 10 August 2025 and therefore the company had no authority, control, or involvement in the landlord’s actions.
This tenancy commenced on 14 April 2025 and the property management company were involved from the beginning. The issues around landlord entry and breach of quiet enjoyment occurred during May, June and July 2025 when the property management company were still involved.
At the hearing the property management company produced two emails which it had sent to the owner on 3 June 2025 and 16 June 2025. Both emails related to complaints that the tenants had made in relation to breaches of landlord entry.
As the property management company were involved during the time that the breaches for landlord entry and quiet enjoyment occurred there is no ground for a rehearing. Name suppression
At the hearing the property management company sought name suppression under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The two emails mentioned above were produced to show that the property management company took steps to ensure that the landlord complied in relation to landlord entry.
The Tribunal notes that the property management company acted as agent for the landlord. While I accept that the property management company did respond to the complaints of the tenants, it is not clear that the company took all reasonable steps to prevent further breaches. I refer to the message 1 forwarded from the property manager to the tenants where the owner advised he would be attending at the premises at any time without notifying them each time. The order confirmed that this notice did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a suppression order is appropriate or that publication of the company’s name would cause undue hardship. The application for suppression is not granted. 1 Paragraph 25 of TT Order dated 28 October 2025

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The applications for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

The property management company and the owner both attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing and had advised the Tribunal that they would be overseas on the date of hearing.
On 28 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages and compensation in favour of the tenant.
On 3 November 2025, Zhicheng (Tim) Liu applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenancy was organized by a police officer, and that it was deliberate, malicious and sophisticated.
On 4 November 2025, John He of Barfoot and Thompson Limited (Highland Park) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the owner acted independently, Barfoot and Thompson were not involved in or responsible for the landlord’s conduct and Barfoot and Thompson’s management of the property ended on 10 August 2025.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Owner application

For the following reasons Zhicheng (Tim) Liu has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Zhicheng (Tim) Liu is the owner of the premises. He claims that a police officer (Officer S) organised the tenants to rent the house. He believes that Officer S was involved in this tenancy because something happened every month which he said was not normal for a tenancy. The owner says that Officer S lives in a house opposite to where he lives.
The owner has not produced any evidence to support the claim that Officer S is involved with this tenancy, or even if he did whether it is relevant.
The owner referred to the tenants luring him to commit crimes by offering him a drink of ginger beer, by leaving the door slightly open while the tenant showered at 2pm in the afternoon, the tenant using an excessive number of tampons which caused the drain to block and by Officer S asking the plumbing company to delay the unblocking of the drain and not using the correct tools.
None of these are grounds for a rehearing. The owner’s application for rehearing is dismissed. Barfoot and Thompson application
For the following reasons John He of Barfoot and Thompson (Highland Park) has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The property management company submitted that the management of this property ended on 10 August 2025 and therefore the company had no authority, control, or involvement in the landlord’s actions.
This tenancy commenced on 14 April 2025 and the property management company were involved from the beginning. The issues around landlord entry and breach of quiet enjoyment occurred during May, June and July 2025 when the property management company were still involved.
At the hearing the property management company produced two emails which it had sent to the owner on 3 June 2025 and 16 June 2025. Both emails related to complaints that the tenants had made in relation to breaches of landlord entry.
As the property management company were involved during the time that the breaches for landlord entry and quiet enjoyment occurred there is no ground for a rehearing. Name suppression
At the hearing the property management company sought name suppression under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The two emails mentioned above were produced to show that the property management company took steps to ensure that the landlord complied in relation to landlord entry.
The Tribunal notes that the property management company acted as agent for the landlord. While I accept that the property management company did respond to the complaints of the tenants, it is not clear that the company took all reasonable steps to prevent further breaches. I refer to the message 1 forwarded from the property manager to the tenants where the owner advised he would be attending at the premises at any time without notifying them each time. The order confirmed that this notice did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a suppression order is appropriate or that publication of the company’s name would cause undue hardship. The application for suppression is not granted. 1 Paragraph 25 of TT Order dated 28 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318305 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Summermist Drive, Northpark, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318305 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Summermist Drive, Northpark, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions