What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405548?

The tribunal order states: Antony Barnes must pay Graham Wayne Reichenbach $16,995.86

How much money was awarded in case 5405548?

Compensation: $6,545.88 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $970.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18,691.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405548?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13157758-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405548?

The tribunal order states: Antony Barnes must pay Graham Wayne Reichenbach $16,995.86

How much money was awarded in case 5405548?

Compensation: $6,545.88 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $970.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18,691.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405548?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13157758-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82520 State Highway 2, Pahiatua, RD 4, Pahiatua 4984 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405548 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405548 — net $16,995.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears previous tenancy to 23 May 2023	$970.00		Rent arrears previous tenancy to 23 May 2023
Rent arrears current tenancy to 22 July 2025 adjusted for	$18,691.74		Rent arrears current tenancy to 22 July 2025 adjusted for
Rent arrears owed 23 July 2025 to 20 January 2026	$5,050.00		Rent arrears owed 23 July 2025 to 20 January 2026
Compensation maintenance		$6,545.88	Compensation maintenance
Compensation HHS		$1,170.00	Compensation HHS
Total award	$24,711.74	$7,715.88
Net award	$16,995.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,995.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405548 — net $16,995.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears previous tenancy to 23 May 2023	$970.00		Rent arrears previous tenancy to 23 May 2023
Rent arrears current tenancy to 22 July 2025 adjusted for	$18,691.74		Rent arrears current tenancy to 22 July 2025 adjusted for
Rent arrears owed 23 July 2025 to 20 January 2026	$5,050.00		Rent arrears owed 23 July 2025 to 20 January 2026
Compensation maintenance		$6,545.88	Compensation maintenance
Compensation HHS		$1,170.00	Compensation HHS
Total award	$24,711.74	$7,715.88
Net award	$16,995.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,995.86

Order

Antony Barnes must pay Graham Wayne Reichenbach $16,995.86 immediately, being as calculated in the table below.
The tenancy at 82520 State Highway 2, Pahiatua, RD 4, Pahiatua 4984 is terminated immediately and possession granted to Graham Wayne Reichenbach.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, and payment of rent arrears.
The tenant has cross-applied for $25,105.55 in compensation for repairs and maintenance he undertaken on the property and breach of Healthy Homes Standards.
The onus is on each party to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy started on 1 April 2015. The landlord provided one page of a written agreement, showing that at that stage, the rent was $175 and the bond $700.
The landlord produced a copy of a letter dated 10 October 2022 giving two months’ notice of a rent increase to $390 a week.
As set out in my directions of 14 October 2025, the parties have had previous applications before the Tribunal. The parties’ applications were dealt with in a decision dated 11 April 2023 1 in which the following order was made: The tenant has until 5 pm 26 April 2023 to make payment in full of the rent arrears of $13,368.27. If the tenant does not make payment in full of that sum by that day and time then the tenancy ... will be terminated, and possession granted to Graham Wayne Reichenbach, at 11.59 pm Tuesday 23 May 2023.
That order comprised rent arrears to 5 April 2023 of $24,010.00 less $8,741.73 for work done by the tenant.
The tenant did not pay the arrears of $13,368.27 by 26 April 2023 and did not vacate the premises by 23 May 2023, but the landlord did not apply for a possession order. The tenant and his family have continued to live there.
The landlord has an attachment order for $30 a week against the tenant’s income for the Tribunal’s order numbered 499821.
Because the tenancy was terminated by the above order, the arrangement from 24 May 2023 is a new tenancy.
Although the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), stipulates that tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, it also says that an agreement is still enforceable, even if not signed. 2
The parties both say that the rent has continued to be $390. 1 2 See sections 13 and 13C
When this matter came before me on 14 October 2025, I referred the parties to mediation because there was a dispute about the rent, and some suggestion that the landlord had agreed to the tenant undertaking repairs. It was hoped that the parties could reach agreement. Most of the 45 minutes’ hearing time allocated was used trying to establish the facts.
The mediation did not eventuate. The parties came back for another 45-minute hearing on 20 November 2025, having had no discussions and filed no evidence. Directions were therefore made, and a full day set aside for the hearing on 20 January. Half the day was spent on the hearing. Landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears.
As directed, the landlord has provided two rent summaries: one for rent arrears from 6 April 2023 to 23 May 2023. This is for the old tenancy which ended on 23 May 2023. Because the previous order captured rent arrears only until 5 April, rent continued to accrue from 5 April until 23 May 2023. That shows that some rent payments were made, but some were missed. The balance of rent arrears owing on that tenancy is $970.00.
The landlord has provided a new rent summary from 24 May 2023 to 20 January 2026, showing that the amount of arrears is $31,752.00 to that date.
Although the rent summaries put the arrears owing into the weekly amount due, the tenant did not dispute the rent summaries and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the amount claimed has been proved.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The parties were advised at the hearing that because the tenant’s claims would not fully offset the amount owed, the tenancy would be terminated and the tenant was advised to make preparations.
The landlord has established that $32,722.00 is owing in rent arrears for the two tenancies.
However, section 49 of the Act says that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The landlord has done little or nothing to prevent the rent arrears accruing again, having already taken the tenant to the Tribunal for termination and significant rent arrears.
Since the new tenancy began, the tenant has repeatedly breached his obligations. By 18 July 2023, the tenant owed $1,840.48, which is more than 21 days of rent. The balance owing was then reduced a little, but by 29 August 2023, the rent arrears were at $1,812.00, and have gradually increased ever since, with rent payments not being made every week. There were long periods in 2024 where no weekly rent was paid. By 31 December 2024 the arrears had reached $17,362.48. This pattern continued throughout 2025.
The landlord issued no notices to remedy under section 56, but on or about 22 July 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination and rent arrears. The rent arrears were at $26,702.48 by that stage. The tenant has failed to pay a further $5,050 rent in the meantime.
Until July 2025, the landlord took no steps to mitigate his loss. Accordingly, I have applied a 30% reduction to the amount owing at the time he filed his application. Therefore the amount owed from 24 May 2023 to 22 July 2025 is $18,691.74.
Once the application had been filed, the tenant continued to miss rent payments, making the arrears owed from 23 July 2025 to 20 January 2026 $5,050. No adjustment is made for that period or for the period of arrears that accumulated on the first tenancy once the Tribunal’s order had been made. The total rent arrears owed comes to $24,711.74 The tenant’s claims
Antony Barnes claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, the landlord has a number of obligations. The tenants says that the landlord has failed to comply with his obligations to: a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Some of the tenant’s claims relate to a failure to maintain the workshop, including having adequate guttering. I have considered whether the landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Agreement 1986 extend to the workshop.

Does the workshop form part of the residential tenancy agreement?

As well as a house and garage, there is another separate building on the premises. The landlord refers to this as the “big shed”. The tenant calls it the “workshop”, and that is the way it is described in this decision. The workshop is a separate building. The tenant says it is 30 metres from the house, whereas the landlord says it is 70 to 100 metres away.
When the tenant first moved into the premises in 2015, he did not have the use of the workshop. Someone else was occupying it. That person was evicted in 2017, and since then the tenant has used it for his business. He derives most of his income from the work he does there.
The landlord says in 2017, the workshop was not included in the tenancy, but that he simply agreed that the tenant could use it. Since 2022 he has considered the tenancy covers the house, garage, paddock and the workshop.
Section 5 of the Act specifies situations the Act does not apply to. In particular, the Act does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. Section 2 defines commercial premises as premises that are not residential premises.
Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. 3
There is some suggestion that the previous occupant of the workshop had been living there, but that is not the case for the present tenant. I am satisfied that the principal purpose of the house is residential, but that the workshop is separate from the residential premises and is used solely for commercial purposes. It is therefore considered commercial premises, and the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to that part. Maintenance
The tenant seeks compensation for a number of matters that he has fixed over the past few years. As noted in the 2023 decision, a landlord is not liable to pay for repairs, renovations or alterations by a tenant which have not been approved by the landlord. In that case, the landlord agreed to pay the amount that was deducted from the arrears owed.
The parties are reminded of the law regarding maintenance. In summary: a. The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; 4 b. The tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; 5 c. The tenant must not make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord; 6 3 Section 2 4 Section 45(1)(a) 5 Section 40(1)(d) 6 Section 42 d. The tenant may apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order. 7
Usually if a tenant seeks some maintenance, they will speak to the landlord about it. Occasionally, they may issue a 14-day notice to remedy a breach. If that fails, they may apply to the Tribunal for a work order.
There is no suggestion that the tenant obtained the written consent of the landlord for any repairs or maintenance undertaken. The Tribunal will not usually compensate a tenant for any repairs when they have not obtained the written consent of the landlord, but the landlord has again agreed to pay for some items. Where there is a dispute about the amounts claimed, the onus is on the tenant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the sum sought is justified.
For the present hearing, the tenant presented a list of all repairs he had undertaken. He did not provide itemised invoices for his time or receipts for items purchase. He provided photographs of some items.
At the hearing, some time was spent discussing each of the tenant’s claims and trying to establish whether the landlord knew or ought to have known about the issues, and when the parties first discussed them, if at all. Despite disputing knowledge of some of the issues, the landlord later presented a list of what he was prepared to pay for. He also pointed out that some of the items had already been ruled on in 2023. It would have been useful to have this schedule before we spent some time discussing individual items.
The following table represents the amounts claimed and the amounts agreed to: Work completedhours Cost claimed by tenant Amount landlord agrees Landlord says 1 Replacement water pump parts 2315.68y 2 Aerial repairs2439.87n300.00 3 Removal of dead branches2500.00y 4 Workshop roof repairs8800.00y 5 Gate and yard fence repairs8680.00y 6 Front fence repairs3250.00y 7 Removal of 6 dead trees-3000.00n Some covered in previous order 8 Rebuild front yard/paddock fencing322560.00n500.00 9 Repair hole in bedroom/lounge wall2200.00y 10 Sanding/repainting window sills8300.00y 11 Replace bathroom/kitchen taps3400.00n Kitchen covered in previous order
00 7 Section 78(1)(e) 12 Replace fireplace bricks2160.00y 13 Fill cracks around windows2200.00y 14 Cleaning black mould50.00y 15 Replace fireplace string150.00y 16 Fill holes in toilet/bathroom walls3300.00y 17 Repair workshop door system161280.00n 18 Workshop air system161280.00n 19 Sanding/rewallpaper toilet walls4400.00y 20 Replace kitchen sink81500.00nvery dear 21 Power pole posts5000.00n covered in previous order 22 Repair damaged wire mesh1600.00n covered in previous order 23 8 post holes 3840.00n covered in previous order 25,105.55
The previous order was reviewed at the hearing, and it was agreed that three of the dead trees claimed for (item 7) had been covered in the earlier order, as had the kitchen taps (item 11). Therefore, the sum of $1,500 is deducted for the trees and $200 for the taps.
As noted in the table, the last three items claimed (21, 22 and 23) have already been compensated in the previous order. Therefore, the sum of $10,440 must be deducted from the total.
The landlord agrees to pay $300 for the aerial repairs (item 2). The tenant is claiming 2 hours labour and has not provided any receipts of invoices for materials. The tenant has not established the claim of $439.87, but the landlord agrees to pay $300 and that is the amount ordered. A further $139.87 is therefore deducted from the amount claimed.
The landlord said that he believed the tenant was responsible for damage to the front fence because he had kept pigs. However, he agreed to pay $500 towards the fencing. He said that the fence that the tenant had erected is not worth the $2,560.00 claimed, and will need to be replaced.
The tenant has charged his time at 32 hours at $80 an hour. He described replacing the fence piece by piece. He provided a photo which shows a broken rail in a post and rail fence. This was taken in September 2024. The later photo is of poor quality. The rails have been removed from parts of the fence, between approximately four posts. Although not clear in the photo, the parties agree that the tenant has placed netting.
The tenant has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the work undertaken on the fence is worth $2,560.00. The landlord has agreed to pay $500, and so that amount is ordered.
The landlord also questioned the amount claimed for the kitchen sink. The tenant wanted to replace the sink because the lip of the sink sat above the benchtop and so grime accumulated under the lip, making it difficult to keep clean. The landlord agreed that it should be fixed but there was a disagreement about the cost. He thought that the sink was very dear.
The tenant said that he had spent 8 hours on this job. He did not pay anything for the sink. I therefore order $640 for the sink for his 8 hours’ work.
There are three matters that relate to the workshop. The landlord agrees to pay $800 for roof repairs but does not agree to pay $1,280.00 for repairing the workshop door system or $1280 for the workshop air system. Because I have found that the workshop is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, I have no jurisdiction to make orders relating to the workshop. Therefore the sum of $800 cannot be included in the order, even though the landlord agrees to it.
In addition to the table presented, the tenant claimed compensation in relation to the hot water cylinder. He says that there is a leak and also a problem with the thermostat. He provided a photograph showing a damp patch under the water cylinder. He said that an electrician has recommended a new thermostat.
The landlord said that he has told the electrician to replace the thermostat.
The plumber has told the landlord that there is no leak.
The only corroborative evidence before the Tribunal is a photograph showing a damp patch under the water cylinder. There is no evidence of the source of the dampness. There is no independent evidence of what repairs are required. This makes it difficult to understand what, if any, issue there is with the hot water cylinder or how to quantify any loss.
No application has been made for a work order, but in any event, in the absence of any evidence from a plumber or electrician specifying what work is required, it would be difficult to make a work order. The landlord has agreed to replace the thermostat.
No order is made for compensation in relation to the hot water cylinder.
In summary the following sums are ordered: Work completedhours Amount ordered Replacement water pump parts 315.68 Aerial repairs300.00 Removal of dead branches500.00 Workshop roof repairs0 Gate and yard fence repairs680.00 Front fence repairs250.00 Removal of 6 dead trees1500.00 Rebuild front yard/paddock fencing500.00 Repair hole in bedroom/lounge wall2200.00 Sanding/repainting window sills8300.00 Replace bathroom/kitchen taps3200.00 Replace fireplace bricks2160.00 Fill cracks around windows2200.00 Cleaning black mould50.00 Replace fireplace string150.00 Fill holes in toilet/bathroom walls3300.00 Repair workshop door system160 Workshop air system160 Sanding/rewallpaper toilet walls4400.00 Replace kitchen sink8640.00 Power pole posts0 Repair damaged wire mesh0 8 post holes 0 Total compensation 6,545.88

Has the landlord complied with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims that the home does not comply with Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Because this tenancy began between 28 August 2022 and before 3 March 2025, it had to comply with all HHS no later than 120 days after it began. Compliance was required by 20 September 2023.
In a minute issued on 10 December 2025, the tenant was directed to file and serve all evidence, including specifying which standard has been breached, for how long it has been breached, and when it was brought to the landlord’s attention.
The evidence filed does not address that direction.
The tenant says that the property is mouldy, indicating that it does not comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
Mould may be a symptom of a breach of a healthy homes standard, but it does not prove a breach of a standard. Heating
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
There is a woodburner in the lounge. The tenant says that the lounge gets hot while other rooms are cold.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenant has provided no evidence that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard. The claim is dismissed. Ventilation
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. This is because the extractor fan in the kitchen is not very effective.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The tenant has provided no evidence that the kitchen extractor fan does not comply with the minimum defined extraction capacity. The claim is dismissed. Draught-stopping
The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant provided two photographs. One is of a window frame and one of a door frame. The photos show that the frames may be rotting and it seems there may be a split within the frames, but there were no photographs showing gaps where draughts would arise. The tenant has not established on the balance of probabilities that there are unreasonable gaps or holes where draughts arise. The claim is dismissed. Moisture ingress and drainage
The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard which requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant says that the landlord has not met this standard because there is no guttering. The photographs provided do not show that there is no guttering on the house or the garage. It transpired that these were taken in 2023 and that since then the garage guttering has fallen off.
In fact, the property has been reroofed since the photographs were taken. The landlord says that he was told when the property was re-roofed that new guttering would not make much difference because it was too far from the tank.
The tenant produced photographs of the lawn showing it was very muddy and said that is evidence of the poor drainage.
The landlord says that the damage to the lawn is because the tenant has had pigs on it.
The onus is on the tenant to show that the landlord has not complied, the degree of non-compliance and the extent of the impact on him.
The landlord has accepted that some guttering is missing. This is a breach of the HHS.
However, the tenant provided no photographs or videos of the workshop showing no guttering, of water coming off the roof during rain, the distance from the house or any evidence to help determine whether there has been non- compliance because of water pooling around the house from the workshop.
The tenant has provided no photographs of videos of the house and garage showing no guttering, water coming off the room during rain, water pooling around the house during rain or other evidence to prove the extent of non- compliance.
The only evidence of non-compliance is the landlord’s concession that he was told that new guttering would not make much difference.
Because of the lack of evidence, it is difficult to assess an appropriate amount of compensation. I accept the tenant’s evidence that when going to the garage to get firewood, water sometimes poured on to them.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the state of the lawn is purely as a result of a lack of guttering. There are no photographs showing water pooling on the lawn or the proximity of the lawn to the roof/lack of guttering.
In the absence of other evidence, I have decided that the landlord should compensate the tenant $1,170, representing three weeks’ rent. Conclusion
Neither party applied for name suppression.
Neither party has been fully successful and so there are no orders for reimbursement of the filing fee or suppression.
Neither party has applied for a refund of the bond.
The parties are strongly urged to inform themselves of their rights and responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and follow the procedures that are available to them.
Should either party make a further application to the Tribunal, they are reminded of the need to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims. As they were told at the hearing, it is not the role of the Tribunal to mediate between the parties or build a case for either party. They may find that if they have not provided evidence in a cogent, clear and comprehensive form, their claims are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405548 — Rent arrears at 82520 State Highway 2, Pahiatua, RD 4, Pahiatua 4984

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405548 — Rent arrears at 82520 State Highway 2, Pahiatua, RD 4, Pahiatua 4984

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the workshop form part of the residential tenancy agreement?

Has the landlord complied with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the workshop form part of the residential tenancy agreement?

Has the landlord complied with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions