Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5385705 — Cleanliness at 48 Cunliffe Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037
Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5385705
Dismissed
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Merrett
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Figgess represented the landlord.
- The tenant, Ms Tchernegovski, had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 11 July 2025 and ending on 12 October 2025. At the time of entering into the tenancy agreement, Ms Tchernegovski was an employee of Nice Property Management and remained as an employee during the period of the tenancy until her employment was terminated. Ms Tchernegovski then gave notice to end the tenancy.
- On 10 November 2025, Ms Tchernegovski filed this application. She claims compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment. She also claims reimbursement of the cost ($39.00) she incurred for having a second set of keys for the premises cut shortly before the tenancy commenced.
- Most of Ms Tchernegovski’s complaints arose out of the break down in the working relationship she had with her work colleague and property manager for the tenancy, Ms Figgess. She said that the reason she gave notice to end the tenancy was because of the tensions between her and Ms Figgess at work.
- However, the Tribunal is not a Tribunal of general complaint; it can only consider disputes that arise between landlords and tenants provided that dispute is in relation to a residential tenancy that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- Other matters complained of by Ms Tchernegovski that have any relationship to the tenancy are the communications between her and Ms Figgess after the tenancy ended. These issues arose out of Ms Figgess giving Ms Tchernegovski an additional three days after the tenancy ended to return to the property to remedy issues (cleaning, lawn mowing, collection of chattels and the like). These occurred outside the period of the tenancy at a time when the parties were no longer in a landlord and tenant relationship and therefore are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, even if they were they are very minor matters and would not constitute a breach of any obligation on a landlord under the Act.
- I also find that the key cutting claim does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Ms Tchernegovski was instructed, as an employee, to have the keys cut for the tenancy before the tenancy commenced. Ms Figgess said that she was instructed to have just one set cut, which was paid for by the landlord, but Ms Tchernegovski had an additional set cut and she was required to pay for that additional set. Ms Figgess said that this was explained to Ms Tchernegovski at the time, and it was only after the tenancy ended that the issue arose again. Ms Tchernegovski did not dispute that the charge was for the second set of keys, and she could not recall whether she was told to have only one set cut.
- I am satisfied that Ms Tchernegovski was instructed to have the keys cut as an employee of Nice Property Management, not as a tenant. Thus, it is an employment issue and not one that comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
- The remaining complaints by Ms Tchernegovski arise out of email communications between her and Ms Figgess during the tenancy. Ms Tchernegovski said that she sent “multiple” emails to Ms Figgess to which she did not receive a reply. Two of the examples given by Ms Tchernegovski were a failure by Ms Figgess to send an acknowledgment of her notice to end the tenancy until later in that week, and failure to send an acknowledgement of her email asking for no viewings to take place due to her son being unwell. Ms Figgess disputes that she did not reply to Ms Tchernegovski’s emails.
- Even if it were established that Ms Figgess did not respond to all emails sent by Ms Tchernegovski, this is not sufficient to establish a breach by the landlord of any obligation owed to a tenant under the Act. They are also minor matters of inconvenience or misunderstanding and should not be matters that waste the time of the Tribunal.
- The claim for compensation is therefore dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5385705?
The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5385705?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385705?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385705?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13231559-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.