What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5459672?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5459672?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459672?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13558448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5459672?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5459672?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459672?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13558448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459672 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459672 — net $1,003.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 April 2026	$3,300.00	Rent arrears to 2 April 2026
Water rates: and power	$315.11	Water rates: and power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,003.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,003.11

Order

This order amends and replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 2 April 2026 by correcting the amount ordered in order 2. below from $908.82 to $1,003.11 as set out in the table under order 4. This was a typing error. In all other respects the Order is unchanged.

The tenancy of Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd, immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-25120291) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd immediately.
Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd $1,003.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s application for methamphetamine testing costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Suri, representing the landlord attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord’s application sought termination of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant had not remedied the breached set out in the following 14 day notices: a. Failure to pay rent on time – issued on 2 March 2026 b. Keeping a dog on the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement which states no pets are permitted on the premises – issued on 17 February 2026
The landlord had also issued the tenants with a 14 day notice on 9 March 2026 relating to the following breaches: a. Using or permitting the tenancy premises to be used for unlawful purposes. The notice states “Smoking methamphetamine is a Class A drug offence, and stealing the common area pillow is a theft”. b. Interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants or any neighbour. The notice states “Drug use and common areas (the foyer) is a significant interference”.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. Accordingly the tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As the tenancy has been terminated for rent arrears I have not determined whether the tenancy would have been terminated for the other grounds set out in the 14 day notices.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water and power?

The landlord provided the water rates and power invoice for 13 February 2026 to 31 March 2026 which proves $70.16 is owed for water and $244.95 is owed for power for the same period. Methamphetamine costs
The landlord provided screen shots of CCTV footage of the foyer/entry area of the apartment building the premises are in taken which it believes shows the tenant/s using methamphetamine. As a result the landlord was concerned that the tenants were using methamphetamine in their apartment and arranged for samples to be collected and a screening assessment to be done to determine whether there was a presence of methamphetamine in the premises.
On 13 March 2026 7 samples were collected by All Clear Group Limited from the following locations in the premises: entry door, hallway ceiling, extractor fan in the kitchen, bedroom 1 and 2 doors, ensuite door and bathroom door.
Analysis by Hills Laboratory shows an average of 1.18μg/100cm² over the 7 sample composite which All Clear’s report states is consistent with consumption of methamphetamine. The theoretical maximum if all of the methamphetamine residue was in one sample was 8.2μg/100cm² .
The landlord claims $264.44 for the cost of testing 1 on the basis that the tenants have used, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The manufacture, use or possession of any controlled drug is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b).
The landlord confirmed that methamphetamine testing was not carried out at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said testing was not done as the premises were new when the tenancy started.
The landlord’s view is that the screen shots presented from the CCTV footage taken from the foyer area show the tenant/s using a meth pipe and is strong evidence that they would have used methamphetamine in their apartment as well. The landlord believes its view is supported by the results of the testing and analysis carried out in the apartment showing methamphetamine contamination.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”. Generally, the more 1 A further claim in the landlords application for ‘meth contamination’ for $629.65 was withdrawn at the hearing. serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required 2 . This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.
As there was no methamphetamine test done before the tenants moved into the premises it is not known for sure whether there was any methamphetamine residue present before the tenancy commenced. I am not persuaded that the apartment being new at the start of the tenancy means that methamphetamine has not been used in the premises. There is always the possibility that anyone entering the premises before the tenancy started by have used methamphetamine in the apartment.
The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means that other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. See District Court cases Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976.
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove:- a. That it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, and b. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, that it is more probable than not that the methamphetamine use during this tenancy caused ‘damage’ to the premises.
The only evidence presented by the landlord that the tenants were using methamphetamine in the premises, or that they permitted others to use methamphetamine in the premises, is the screen shots of the CCTV footage from the foyer.
On the evidence presented I am not convinced that the landlord has met the burden of proof required and therefore find there is no basis to award the testing costs. This part of the application is dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459672 — net $1,003.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 April 2026	$3,300.00	Rent arrears to 2 April 2026
Water rates: and power	$315.11	Water rates: and power
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,003.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,003.11

Order

The tenancy of Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd, immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-25120291) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd immediately.
Kyla Cox and Shannon Stone must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Housing For Social Benefits Ltd $1,003.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s application for methamphetamine testing costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Suri, representing the landlord attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord’s application sought termination of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant had not remedied the breached set out in the following 14 day notices: a. Failure to pay rent on time – issued on 2 March 2026 b. Keeping a dog on the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement which states no pets are permitted on the premises – issued on 17 February 2026
The landlord had also issued the tenants with a 14 day notice on 9 March 2026 relating to the following breaches: a. Using or permitting the tenancy premises to be used for unlawful purposes. The notice states “Smoking methamphetamine is a Class A drug offence, and stealing the common area pillow is a theft”. b. Interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants or any neighbour. The notice states “Drug use and common areas (the foyer) is a significant interference”.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. Accordingly the tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As the tenancy has been terminated for rent arrears I have not determined whether the tenancy would have been terminated for the other grounds set out in the 14 day notices.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water and power?

The landlord provided the water rates and power invoice for 13 February 2026 to 31 March 2026 which proves $70.16 is owed for water and $244.95 is owed for power for the same period. Methamphetamine costs
The landlord provided screen shots of CCTV footage of the foyer/entry area of the apartment building the premises are in taken which it believes shows the tenant/s using methamphetamine. As a result the landlord was concerned that the tenants were using methamphetamine in their apartment and arranged for samples to be collected and a screening assessment to be done to determine whether there was a presence of methamphetamine in the premises.
On 13 March 2026 7 samples were collected by All Clear Group Limited from the following locations in the premises: entry door, hallway ceiling, extractor fan in the kitchen, bedroom 1 and 2 doors, ensuite door and bathroom door.
Analysis by Hills Laboratory shows an average of 1.18μg/100cm² over the 7 sample composite which All Clear’s report states is consistent with consumption of methamphetamine. The theoretical maximum if all of the methamphetamine residue was in one sample was 8.2μg/100cm² .
The landlord claims $264.44 for the cost of testing 1 on the basis that the tenants have used, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The manufacture, use or possession of any controlled drug is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b).
The landlord confirmed that methamphetamine testing was not carried out at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said testing was not done as the premises were new when the tenancy started.
The landlord’s view is that the screen shots presented from the CCTV footage taken from the foyer area show the tenant/s using a meth pipe and is strong evidence that they would have used methamphetamine in their apartment as well. The landlord believes its view is supported by the results of the testing and analysis carried out in the apartment showing methamphetamine contamination.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”. Generally, the more 1 A further claim in the landlords application for ‘meth contamination’ for $629.65 was withdrawn at the hearing. serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required 2 . This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.
As there was no methamphetamine test done before the tenants moved into the premises it is not known for sure whether there was any methamphetamine residue present before the tenancy commenced. I am not persuaded that the apartment being new at the start of the tenancy means that methamphetamine has not been used in the premises. There is always the possibility that anyone entering the premises before the tenancy started by have used methamphetamine in the apartment.
The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means that other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. See District Court cases Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976.
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove:- a. That it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, and b. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, that it is more probable than not that the methamphetamine use during this tenancy caused ‘damage’ to the premises.
The only evidence presented by the landlord that the tenants were using methamphetamine in the premises, or that they permitted others to use methamphetamine in the premises, is the screen shots of the CCTV footage from the foyer.
On the evidence presented I am not convinced that the landlord has met the burden of proof required and therefore find there is no basis to award the testing costs. This part of the application is dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459672 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459672 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 44, 7 Layard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water and power?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water and power?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions