What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356370 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

How much money was awarded in case 5356370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356370 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

How much money was awarded in case 5356370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356370 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
The landlord is to hold the remaining belongings of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] until 21 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] may arrange with Ms Tweedale to collect her belongings on the following conditions: a. That they are collected during one four hour visit at a time agreed between the parties before 21 November 2025. b. That Ms Parker arrange for others to collect the belongings on her behalf. As she is subject to a Trespass Notice, Ms Parker is not to enter the property herself.
Any belongings left at the property after 21 November 2025, the landlord may dispose of as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Tweedale represented All Things Property Limited. Mr Gaskin represented St Marys Silverstream the owner of the tenancy premise.
Ms Parker did not attend the video hearing and did not answer the six calls 1 made to her phone number ending in 8559 2 and three calls to her phone number ending 4243 during the hearing. Both numbers had been provided to the Tribunal by Ms Parker.
Ms Parker did, shortly into the hearing, contact Registry to say she was waiting for a call. They responded asking her to confirm her number and providing her with the link again. They did not receive a reply from Ms Parker.
Ms Parker was clearly aware of the hearing, had the hearing link and was telephoned multiple times, however did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied she had opportunity to attend and did not, as has also occurred in previous Tribunal hearings. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
As Ms Parker did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, her claims are dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) RTA.
The landlord has applied for an order approving of the disposal of goods Ms Parker left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The remaining items are a trampoline, installed security cameras and some rubbish in the garden and under the house. Mr Gaskin gave evidence that the items have very little, if any market resale value.
Mr Gaskin gave detailed evidence of the numerous times they have allowed Ms Parker and her agents access to the property to remove her belongings since the end of the tenancy on 11 September 2025. 3 The landlord has spent in excess of 60 hours facilitating her removal of her belongings and the majority have been removed by her parents and friends on her instruction.
Ms Parker herself is not entitled to attend the property as on 22 September 2025 the Police served a Trespass Notice on her due to her actions and considerable damage that had been inflicted on the property.
On the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has gone over and beyond their obligations in facilitating Ms Parker access to the property to remove her belongings. She had considerable notice of the end of the tenancy and time was allowed after the tenancy ended for her to access the property before the 1 Made at various times during the hearing 2 This is the number she specifically asked to be contacted on 3 See Tribunal order NZTT 5309179, 5309959, 5336068 11 September 2025 locks were changed by the landlord on 22 September 2025. They were lawfully entitled to change the locks as they had possession of the property at that time because the tenancy had ended.
Despite the efforts the landlord has already been put to, they agree to Ms Parker arranging for her associates to collect the remaining few items on the following conditions: a. That she personally not attend the property. b. That the items be collected in one visit to a maximum of four hours. c. That the visit date and time be agreed between the parties. d. That they be collected no later than 21 November 2025.
These are reasonable conditions. If Ms Parker does not collect her belongings by 21 November 2025, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

The landlord is to hold the remaining belongings of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] until 21 November 2025.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] may arrange with Ms Tweedale to collect her belongings on the following conditions: a. That they are collected during one four hour visit at a time agreed between the parties before 21 November 2025. b. That Ms Parker arrange for others to collect the belongings on her behalf. As she is subject to a Trespass Notice, Ms Parker is not to enter the property herself.

Any belongings left at the property after 21 November 2025, the landlord may dispose of as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Tweedale represented All Things Property Limited. Mr Gaskin represented St Marys Silverstream the owner of the tenancy premise.

Ms Parker did not attend the video hearing and did not answer the six calls 1 made to her phone number ending in 8559 2 and three calls to her phone number ending 4243 during the hearing. Both numbers had been provided to the Tribunal by Ms Parker.

Ms Parker did, shortly into the hearing, contact Registry to say she was waiting for a call. They responded asking her to confirm her number and providing her with the link again. They did not receive a reply from Ms Parker.

Ms Parker was clearly aware of the hearing, had the hearing link and was telephoned multiple times, however did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied she had opportunity to attend and did not, as has also occurred in previous Tribunal hearings. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.

As Ms Parker did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, her claims are dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) RTA.

The landlord has applied for an order approving of the disposal of goods Ms Parker left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The remaining items are a trampoline, installed security cameras and some rubbish in the garden and under the house. Mr Gaskin gave evidence that the items have very little, if any market resale value.

Mr Gaskin gave detailed evidence of the numerous times they have allowed Ms Parker and her agents access to the property to remove her belongings since the end of the tenancy on 11 September 2025. 3 The landlord has spent in excess of 60 hours facilitating her removal of her belongings and the majority have been removed by her parents and friends on her instruction.

Ms Parker herself is not entitled to attend the property as on 22 September 2025 the Police served a Trespass Notice on her due to her actions and considerable damage that had been inflicted on the property.

On the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has gone over and beyond their obligations in facilitating Ms Parker access to the property to remove her belongings. She had considerable notice of the end of the tenancy and time was allowed after the tenancy ended for her to access the property before the 1 Made at various times during the hearing 2 This is the number she specifically asked to be contacted on 3 See Tribunal order NZTT 5309179, 5309959, 5336068 11 September 2025 locks were changed by the landlord on 22 September 2025. They were lawfully entitled to change the locks as they had possession of the property at that time because the tenancy had ended.

Despite the efforts the landlord has already been put to, they agree to Ms Parker arranging for her associates to collect the remaining few items on the following conditions: a. That she personally not attend the property. b. That the items be collected in one visit to a maximum of four hours. c. That the visit date and time be agreed between the parties. d. That they be collected no later than 21 November 2025.

These are reasonable conditions. If Ms Parker does not collect her belongings by 21 November 2025, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356370 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356370 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Gloucester Street, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.