What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437048 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5437048?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $381.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437048?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437048 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5437048?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $381.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437048?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760193-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4D, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437048 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437048 — net $409.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement Chorus box	$381.77	Replacement Chorus box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$409.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$409.77

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Michaal Abraham $409.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on the 17 June 2026.
This is a dispute about whether the tenant is liable for the Chorus ONT box that the landlord claims was removed at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants must leave all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant in the premises at the end of a tenancy. (Section 40(1)(e)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord seeks $381.77 for the replacement Chorus ONT box together with the filing fee from the tenant.
At the beginning of the tenancy the premises were brand new. The landlord completed an ingoing inspection of the property on the 3 September and provided photographs to the Tribunal which show that the Chorus ONT box 1 was in place at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenancy only lasted 3 months. The tenant gave notice, and her tenancy ended on the 22 December. The tenant handed back the keys/ swipe cards to the premises to the landlord on the 17 December and the landlord conducted an inspection of the premises on the 18 December. The inspection report was provided to the Tribunal and clearly shows the Chorus ONT box has been removed and “Orbi” router has been plugged in.
In a routine inspection on the 4 December 2026 the Chorus box was in place and was turned on. It is not clear from the inspection photos provided by the landlord of that inspection if the Orbi router was also plugged in.
The tenant is adamant that she did not take the Chorus box, not even inadvertently and she does not know how, when or who took it. She tells me that she did not use it whilst she was at the property and had another router from 2 degrees which she handed back to 2 degrees at the end of the tenancy. She has provided correspondence from 2 degrees that shows that the material that was handed back to them by the tenant was all from 2 degrees and that the tenant did not mistakenly give 2 degrees back the Chorus box.
The tenant says she has never owned an Orbi router, and she has no idea how the Orbi router got into the premises.
The landlord says that the property manager did not notice that the Chorus box was gone and the Orbi router put in its place when the property manager did the inspection on the 18 December, 2 but that the photographs taken during the inspection clearly show that the Chorus box was missing and the Orbi was in place on the 18 December.
The landlord provided evidence after the hearing from its software providers that it uses for inspection reports; that evidence shows that the date of the inspection report cannot be changed and that the photographs were uploaded to the inspection report on the 18 December. This means that on the inspection report of the 18 December is an accurate record of how the premises looked that day and what was or was not in place. 1 The Chorus ONT box was both the fibre connection and router. 2 The Chorus box was only noted as missing when the new tenants moved in and they could not connect to the internet.
The landlord says that no -one else went to the property between the when the tenant handed back the keys on the 17 December and the property manager’s inspection on the 18 December which means that the Chorus box must have missing when the tenant handed back the keys.
The landlord was very clear at the hearing that they do not believe that the tenant intentionally took the Chorus box, rather it has been packed away or taken by mistake.
The burden is on the landlord to prove that on the balance of probabilities that the Chorus box was missing at end of the tenancy.
These cases can be difficult to determine, I consider that both the landlord and the tenant have given their evidence honestly and are genuine in their claim and defence of the claim. This is not a case where I have to decide who I believe; it is a case where I have to decide when the Chorus Box was removed based on the evidence I have.
If the Chorus box was missing at the end of the tenancy, then the tenant is in breach of s40(1)(e)(v) and is liable for the costs of relacing it.
I am satisfied that it more likely than not that the Chorus box was missing at the end of the tenancy and therefore the tenant is in breach of s40 (1)(e)(v) RTA. I say this because the photographs in the inspection report show that the Chorus box is not in the premises on the 18 December when the landlord did their inspection, and no one went into the property between when the tenant handed her keys back and the inspection. This means that the Chorus ONT box must have been missing when the tenant handed back her keys at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided a quote for the replacement Chorus ONT box, I award the landlord that cost.
As the landlord has been successful, then the landlord is entitled to the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437048 — net $409.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement Chorus box	$381.77	Replacement Chorus box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$409.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$409.77

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Michaal Abraham $409.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on the 17 June 2026.
This is a dispute about whether the tenant is liable for the Chorus ONT box that the landlord claims was removed at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants must leave all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant in the premises at the end of a tenancy. (Section 40(1)(e)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord seeks $381.77 for the replacement Chorus ONT box together with the filing fee from the tenant.
At the beginning of the tenancy the premises were brand new. The landlord completed an ingoing inspection of the property on the 3 September and provided photographs to the Tribunal which show that the Chorus ONT box 1 was in place at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenancy only lasted 3 months. The tenant gave notice, and her tenancy ended on the 22 December. The tenant handed back the keys/ swipe cards to the premises to the landlord on the 17 December and the landlord conducted an inspection of the premises on the 18 December. The inspection report was provided to the Tribunal and clearly shows the Chorus ONT box has been removed and “Orbi” router has been plugged in.
In a routine inspection on the 4 December 2026 the Chorus box was in place and was turned on. It is not clear from the inspection photos provided by the landlord of that inspection if the Orbi router was also plugged in.
The tenant is adamant that she did not take the Chorus box, not even inadvertently and she does not know how, when or who took it. She tells me that she did not use it whilst she was at the property and had another router from 2 degrees which she handed back to 2 degrees at the end of the tenancy. She has provided correspondence from 2 degrees that shows that the material that was handed back to them by the tenant was all from 2 degrees and that the tenant did not mistakenly give 2 degrees back the Chorus box.
The tenant says she has never owned an Orbi router, and she has no idea how the Orbi router got into the premises.
The landlord says that the property manager did not notice that the Chorus box was gone and the Orbi router put in its place when the property manager did the inspection on the 18 December, 2 but that the photographs taken during the inspection clearly show that the Chorus box was missing and the Orbi was in place on the 18 December.
The landlord provided evidence after the hearing from its software providers that it uses for inspection reports; that evidence shows that the date of the inspection report cannot be changed and that the photographs were uploaded to the inspection report on the 18 December. This means that on the inspection report of the 18 December is an accurate record of how the premises looked that day and what was or was not in place. 1 The Chorus ONT box was both the fibre connection and router. 2 The Chorus box was only noted as missing when the new tenants moved in and they could not connect to the internet.
The landlord says that no -one else went to the property between the when the tenant handed back the keys on the 17 December and the property manager’s inspection on the 18 December which means that the Chorus box must have missing when the tenant handed back the keys.
The landlord was very clear at the hearing that they do not believe that the tenant intentionally took the Chorus box, rather it has been packed away or taken by mistake.
The burden is on the landlord to prove that on the balance of probabilities that the Chorus box was missing at end of the tenancy.
These cases can be difficult to determine, I consider that both the landlord and the tenant have given their evidence honestly and are genuine in their claim and defence of the claim. This is not a case where I have to decide who I believe; it is a case where I have to decide when the Chorus Box was removed based on the evidence I have.
If the Chorus box was missing at the end of the tenancy, then the tenant is in breach of s40(1)(e)(v) and is liable for the costs of relacing it.
I am satisfied that it more likely than not that the Chorus box was missing at the end of the tenancy and therefore the tenant is in breach of s40 (1)(e)(v) RTA. I say this because the photographs in the inspection report show that the Chorus box is not in the premises on the 18 December when the landlord did their inspection, and no one went into the property between when the tenant handed her keys back and the inspection. This means that the Chorus ONT box must have been missing when the tenant handed back her keys at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided a quote for the replacement Chorus ONT box, I award the landlord that cost.
As the landlord has been successful, then the landlord is entitled to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437048 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437048 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions