What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342990 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 5342990?

Internet Power Cord: $35.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342990 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 5342990?

Internet Power Cord: $35.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

59 Palmer Crescent, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342990 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342990 — net $35.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Internet power cord	$35.90	Internet power cord
Net award	$35.90
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$35.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Nice Place Property Management Limited Cindy Figgess $35.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Nice Place Property Management Limited Cindy Figgess: $35.90 [The tenant/s]: $1,864.10

Reasons

This order is to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 4 December 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned.
Both parties attended today’s hearing – the landlord by video and the tenant by telephone.
This was a claim and crossclaim. At today’s hearing the tenant withdrew her claim.
The landlord has applied for the costs of cleaning the carpet ($458.14), reimbursement of the cost of replacing the internet power cord ($35.90), compensation amounting to three weeks’ rent ($1,710.00) for the tenant’s refusal to allow reasonable access to the premises for the taking of photographs, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels that were provided for their benefit.
The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the carpet after the tenancy ended because it was not left in a reasonable condition. In particular the landlord says that the carpet smelled of dog because the tenant unlawfully had a dog at the premises.
While the tenant states that she did have a dog at the premises it was never allowed inside and so the carpet could not have smelled of dog.
The applicant is required to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the landlord was required to show that more likely than not the carpet smelled of dog and was not left reasonably clean.
In a disputed situation such as this where one party’s evidence directly contradicts the other’s, the applicant would have to provide some kind of objective evidence which shows that the carpet smelled of dog and was not left reasonably clean.
I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim because: (a) There were no photographs which show a carpet that was not left in a reasonably clean state; and (b) The carpet cleaning invoice does not refer to a dog smell or having to deoderise a carpet.
With regard to the internet power cord, the accepted evidence was that fibre was installed near the beginning of the tenancy. While the tenant asserts that the installer told her that she could take the cord at the end of her tenancy, I can find no reason why the installer would advise her this, given that he was not a party to the tenancy agreement.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that it is common sense that the power cord, which is part of the installation, remains with the tenancy.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of its replacement. Failure to allow reasonable access
The landlord claims that the tenant did not allow reasonable access to the premises for the purpose of taking photographs so that the premises could be advertised for rent. The landlord says they lost 3 weeks’ rent because of this breach of s48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The background to this part of the claim is that the tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy on 9 August 2025. This meant that the final day of the tenancy was 30 August 2025.
At one point between 9 and 14 August 2025, the landlord’s photographer rang the tenant requesting access, which was refused. The tenant stated that at that time her children were sick and her partner had just got out of hospital on 11 August 2025.
On 14 August 2025 there was an email exchange between the landlord and the tenant, in which the landlord advised that the tenant must allow reasonable access. The landlord suggested that the photographer should come to the premises on 18 August 2025.
The tenant stated that 18 August 2025 would not suit and instead suggested 21 August 2025.
On 21 August 2025 the landlord emailed and advised that she would be coming on 25 August 2025. The tenant replied that she would be out of the house on 24 August 2025.
I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim for reasons that include: (a) I do not consider it unreasonable for a tenant to not allow access because her children are sick; and (b) The second time the tenant refused access on a certain date she suggested an alternative date, three days later; and (c) This date was not taken up by the landlord and instead the landlord advised that they would access the premises some 4 days after that suggested date; and (d) There is no evidence to show that the delays in accessing the property resulted in the loss of 3 weeks’ rent. The premises were not re-tenanted until 3 November 2025, more than 2 months after this tenancy ended. This indicates that there was likely some other reason that the tenancy remained empty for this period of time. There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal that the tenant’s conduct resulted in their inability to secure a new tenant within a shorter period of time. Filing fee reimbursement
I am dismissing the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee because the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful with their claim against the tenant.
I am not allowing the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee because the tenant withdrew her claim. Suppression of the tenant’s name
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name. Given that she has substantially succeeded in her defence to the landlord’s claim I am allowing her application pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 17 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342990 — net $35.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Internet power cord	$35.90	Internet power cord
Net award	$35.90
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$35.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Nice Place Property Management Limited Cindy Figgess $35.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Nice Place Property Management Limited Cindy Figgess: $35.90 [The tenant/s]: $1,864.10

Reasons

This order is to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 4 December 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned.
Both parties attended today’s hearing – the landlord by video and the tenant by telephone.
This was a claim and crossclaim. At today’s hearing the tenant withdrew her claim.
The landlord has applied for the costs of cleaning the carpet ($458.14), reimbursement of the cost of replacing the internet power cord ($35.90), compensation amounting to three weeks’ rent ($1,710.00) for the tenant’s refusal to allow reasonable access to the premises for the taking of photographs, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels that were provided for their benefit.
The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the carpet after the tenancy ended because it was not left in a reasonable condition. In particular the landlord says that the carpet smelled of dog because the tenant unlawfully had a dog at the premises.
While the tenant states that she did have a dog at the premises it was never allowed inside and so the carpet could not have smelled of dog.
The applicant is required to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the landlord was required to show that more likely than not the carpet smelled of dog and was not left reasonably clean.
In a disputed situation such as this where one party’s evidence directly contradicts the other’s, the applicant would have to provide some kind of objective evidence which shows that the carpet smelled of dog and was not left reasonably clean.
I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim because: (a) There were no photographs which show a carpet that was not left in a reasonably clean state; and (b) The carpet cleaning invoice does not refer to a dog smell or having to deoderise a carpet.
With regard to the internet power cord, the accepted evidence was that fibre was installed near the beginning of the tenancy. While the tenant asserts that the installer told her that she could take the cord at the end of her tenancy, I can find no reason why the installer would advise her this, given that he was not a party to the tenancy agreement.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that it is common sense that the power cord, which is part of the installation, remains with the tenancy.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of its replacement. Failure to allow reasonable access
The landlord claims that the tenant did not allow reasonable access to the premises for the purpose of taking photographs so that the premises could be advertised for rent. The landlord says they lost 3 weeks’ rent because of this breach of s48(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The background to this part of the claim is that the tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy on 9 August 2025. This meant that the final day of the tenancy was 30 August 2025.
At one point between 9 and 14 August 2025, the landlord’s photographer rang the tenant requesting access, which was refused. The tenant stated that at that time her children were sick and her partner had just got out of hospital on 11 August 2025.
On 14 August 2025 there was an email exchange between the landlord and the tenant, in which the landlord advised that the tenant must allow reasonable access. The landlord suggested that the photographer should come to the premises on 18 August 2025.
The tenant stated that 18 August 2025 would not suit and instead suggested 21 August 2025.
On 21 August 2025 the landlord emailed and advised that she would be coming on 25 August 2025. The tenant replied that she would be out of the house on 24 August 2025.
I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim for reasons that include: (a) I do not consider it unreasonable for a tenant to not allow access because her children are sick; and (b) The second time the tenant refused access on a certain date she suggested an alternative date, three days later; and (c) This date was not taken up by the landlord and instead the landlord advised that they would access the premises some 4 days after that suggested date; and (d) There is no evidence to show that the delays in accessing the property resulted in the loss of 3 weeks’ rent. The premises were not re-tenanted until 3 November 2025, more than 2 months after this tenancy ended. This indicates that there was likely some other reason that the tenancy remained empty for this period of time. There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal that the tenant’s conduct resulted in their inability to secure a new tenant within a shorter period of time. Filing fee reimbursement
I am dismissing the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee because the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful with their claim against the tenant.
I am not allowing the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee because the tenant withdrew her claim. Suppression of the tenant’s name
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name. Given that she has substantially succeeded in her defence to the landlord’s claim I am allowing her application pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 17 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342990 — Tenancy dispute at 59 Palmer Crescent, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342990 — Tenancy dispute at 59 Palmer Crescent, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions