What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9038544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9038544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597793-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9038544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9038544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597793-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9038544 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone.
The application is for the balance of a levy due on 15 September 2021, debt collection fees, interest and costs. The Body Corporate has the onus of establishing its claim to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The application was first heard in February and April 2023 and was dismissed. The Body Corporate successfully applied for a rehearing.
At the first hearing and in the rehearing application, the Body Corporate had argued that it was not required to apply payments from the owner to the oldest debt first. It said that it could apportion payment to which debt it saw fit in accordance with Doody v Body Corporate 343562 [2012] NZHC 25.
At the hearing before me it became apparent that a payment made in September 2021 had, in fact, been applied to old “debt” before being applied to the levy due at the time.
I adjourned the hearing and directed the Body Corporate to provide a clear statement showing the September 2021 payment had been apportioned. The owner responded to that statement. Both parties indicated that the Tribunal could the determine the application on the papers. Since then, I have spent considerable time reviewing the parties’ documents and attempting to “untangle” the Body Corporate’s differing explanations for the debt claimed.
The application is for the alleged outstanding balance of a levy due on 15 September 2021, debt collection costs and interest. However, it is clear that the dispute relates back to relatively modest payment issues in 2020.
In particular, a payment due on 15 June 2020 was paid 21 days late. The Body Corporate says that this meant the owner was not entitled to an early payment discount, so the June 2020 levy was under paid by $303.34. There was a $27 shortfall in the payment made for the levy due on 15 September 2020, with the result that a prompt payment discount was again not available to the owner, creating a further shortfall of $303.34.
The owner disputes the claims and says that all other levies have been paid on time and in full. He also claims that debt recovery or penalty fees have been charged multiple times.
When the body corporate received payment in full for the September 2021 levy, it apportioned the payment to amounts it says were outstanding in relation to the 2020 invoices, associated debt recovery fees, and the 2021 invoice. With the result that the Bod Corporate claims there is $1,105.56 owing for the September 2021 invoice.
This application is not for a shortfall in payment of the 2020 invoices. I cannot determine whether there was a shortfall in payment of those invoices or whether it was appropriate to refuse a prompt payment discount. Put simply, the Body Corporate has not established a claim in relation to the 2020 invoices and any associated debt recovery costs.
In the absence of an established basis for apportioning the September 2021 payment, the full amount should have been applied to the September 2021 levy with the result that there would be no debt arising from that levy. As there is no debt, there can be no debt collection or other costs arising from the September 2021 levy.
The record keeping in relation to this owner’s account with the Body Corporate has not been clear or straightforward. It beggars belief that significant costs have been incurred by the Body Corporate for what were, modest payment issues in 2020. Instead of pursuing claims against those invoices, the Body Corporate has persisted with a claim in respect of the 2021 levy, has provided the Tribunal with differing accounts and inconsistent submissions as to the amounts claimed and how they were calculated.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone.
The application is for the balance of a levy due on 15 September 2021, debt collection fees, interest and costs. The Body Corporate has the onus of establishing its claim to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The application was first heard in February and April 2023 and was dismissed. The Body Corporate successfully applied for a rehearing.
At the first hearing and in the rehearing application, the Body Corporate had argued that it was not required to apply payments from the owner to the oldest debt first. It said that it could apportion payment to which debt it saw fit in accordance with Doody v Body Corporate 343562 [2012] NZHC 25.
At the hearing before me it became apparent that a payment made in September 2021 had, in fact, been applied to old “debt” before being applied to the levy due at the time.
I adjourned the hearing and directed the Body Corporate to provide a clear statement showing the September 2021 payment had been apportioned. The owner responded to that statement. Both parties indicated that the Tribunal could the determine the application on the papers. Since then, I have spent considerable time reviewing the parties’ documents and attempting to “untangle” the Body Corporate’s differing explanations for the debt claimed.
The application is for the alleged outstanding balance of a levy due on 15 September 2021, debt collection costs and interest. However, it is clear that the dispute relates back to relatively modest payment issues in 2020.
In particular, a payment due on 15 June 2020 was paid 21 days late. The Body Corporate says that this meant the owner was not entitled to an early payment discount, so the June 2020 levy was under paid by $303.34. There was a $27 shortfall in the payment made for the levy due on 15 September 2020, with the result that a prompt payment discount was again not available to the owner, creating a further shortfall of $303.34.
The owner disputes the claims and says that all other levies have been paid on time and in full. He also claims that debt recovery or penalty fees have been charged multiple times.
When the body corporate received payment in full for the September 2021 levy, it apportioned the payment to amounts it says were outstanding in relation to the 2020 invoices, associated debt recovery fees, and the 2021 invoice. With the result that the Bod Corporate claims there is $1,105.56 owing for the September 2021 invoice.
This application is not for a shortfall in payment of the 2020 invoices. I cannot determine whether there was a shortfall in payment of those invoices or whether it was appropriate to refuse a prompt payment discount. Put simply, the Body Corporate has not established a claim in relation to the 2020 invoices and any associated debt recovery costs.
In the absence of an established basis for apportioning the September 2021 payment, the full amount should have been applied to the September 2021 levy with the result that there would be no debt arising from that levy. As there is no debt, there can be no debt collection or other costs arising from the September 2021 levy.
The record keeping in relation to this owner’s account with the Body Corporate has not been clear or straightforward. It beggars belief that significant costs have been incurred by the Body Corporate for what were, modest payment issues in 2020. Instead of pursuing claims against those invoices, the Body Corporate has persisted with a claim in respect of the 2021 levy, has provided the Tribunal with differing accounts and inconsistent submissions as to the amounts claimed and how they were calculated.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038544 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038544 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions