What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9038864?

The tribunal order states: A rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 18 July 2020 is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 9038864?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038864?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9437285-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9038864?

The tribunal order states: A rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 18 July 2020 is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 9038864?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9038864?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9038864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9437285-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

New Lynn, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9038864 — Unit Titles

Order

A rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 18 July 2020 is granted.
Pradeep Kumar must pay Body Corporate 102312 $23,877.99 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid levies$7,186.37 Interest due on unpaid levies$1,032.94 Unpaid legal costs to enforce 9006501$8,841.07 Interest on unpaid legal costs$2,429.75 BBCL - unpaid costs for 9006501$598.00 BBCL – unit sale disclosures$793.50 Interest on unpaid BBCL costs 9006501$87.98 BBCL prehearing costs for 9038864$894.00 BBCL preparation and attendance at hearing for 9038864 $1,164.38 Filing Fee$850.00 Total award$23,877.99

Reasons

Craig Leishman of Boutique Body Corporates Limited (BBCL) attended the hearing for the body corporate.
Mr Kumar did not attend the hearing.
The body corporate has application is for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, legal and body corporate manager costs relating to enforcing the Tribunal’s order dated 19 April 2018, 1 body corporate manager costs for providing precontract disclosure and urgent pre-settlement disclosure documentation, body corporate manager costs for these proceedings, and the filing fee. Decision to proceed with hearing
Mr Kumar emailed the Tribunal on 12 September advising that he could not attend the hearing because he would be overseas for urgent reasons. The same day, the Tribunal asked Mr Kumar to explain what the urgency was and for supporting evidence. Mr Kumar had still not responded by yesterday 19 September 2023, and yesterday the Tribunal sent a chasing email.
At close of business yesterday, Mr Kumar having provided no explanation or evidence of the urgency requiring his non-attendance, the Tribunal refused Mr Kumar’s application for an adjournment.
At about 6:00pm yesterday, Mr Kumar emailed the Tribunal to say the urgency related to medical issues involving his sister who was in New Zealand but travelling back to India. Mr Kumar decided he must accompany his sister due to her mental health condition.
I decided to proceed with the hearing today because the claim is straightforward. The evidence is cogent. The longer the matter goes on, the more costs Mr Kumar incurs, so it is in his interests that the matter is finalised today.
To illustrate: the claim before me today was for $24,034.17, but only $7,984.84 of that is for outstanding levies. Almost $9,000.00 is for legal costs related to the levies and the remainder is largely for debt recovery costs and interest. If Mr Kumar had simply paid his levies on time, he would not have incurred about $16,000.00 of what I will order today.
The sooner the matter is concluded, the less costs Mr Kumar will incur. 1 Body Corporate 102312 v Pradeep Kumar NZTT [2018] 9006501.

Should a rehearing be granted?

The Tribunal’s order of 18 July 2023 dismissed the body corporate’s application because no one for the body corporate attended the Tribunal to prosecute the claim.
Under s 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has “the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.”
Mr Leishman explained that he and his colleagues made an genuine mistake about ensuring attendance the hearing. Mr Leishman had the hearing date diarised but was overseas on that date. He had thought he had delegated everything he needed to but overlooked this matter.
Consequently, no one attended for the body corporate nor contacted the Tribunal to ask for an adjournment. Mr Leishman was apologetic and requested a rehearing of the matter in the interests of justice.
The file indicates this matter had previously adjourned on two occasions due to the unit owner not being available.
I accept the body corporate’s non-attendance was accidental. In all other respects, the body corporate appears to have progressed its claim diligently.
Not granting a rehearing would result in a miscarriage of justice. To avoid that consequence a rehearing is granted.
I proceeded to rehear the matter. The Tribunal’s reasons for its final order are set out below.

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings for the unit. 2
The body corporate has determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
The body corporate has fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner has not paid the levies by that date. 3 Mr Leishman provided records to prove the amount claimed. 2 See ss80(1)(f) and 121(1) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. 3 See s 124(1) of the Unit Titles Act 2010. Is the unit owner liable for the body corporate’s costs in pursuing these levies?
Under s 124 of the Unit Titles Act 2010, the body corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies.
The Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the body corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
The body corporate has incurred body corporate manager costs for the levies just mentioned.
BBCL’s charges for sending out a notice of intent, searching the title, and preparing the current application were $894.00. BBCL charged a further $1,164.38 for preparing for the hearing and travelling to and appearing at the hearing.
I am satisfied these costs are reasonable.
An order is made accordingly. Is the unit owner liable for enforcement costs of the Tribunal’s earlier order?
On 19 April 2018, the Tribunal ordered Mr Kumar to immediately pay the body corporate $8,240.11 for levies, interest, costs, and the filing fee. 4
Unfortunately, Mr Kumar did not pay the judgment debt and the body corporate had to employ lawyers to take enforcement action in the courts. As a result, the body corporate has outstanding legal costs for Grove Darlow and JG Connell amounting to $8,841.07 and body corporate manager costs to BBCL of $598.00.
For the reasons just mentioned, the Tribunal must order the unit owner to reimburse the body corporate for its reasonable costs to recover the historical levies.
I am satisfied the costs are reasonable.
An order is made for the costs.

Is the unit owner liable for the cost of disclosure documents?

Mr Kumar was interested in selling his unit. To facilitate a sale he asked the body corporate for pre-contract disclosure and pre-settlement disclosure documentation. BBCL provided the documents requested with a cost to the body corporate of $793.50, which has not been paid.
The Tribunal orders the unit owner to pay the outstanding debt. 4 See n 1.

Is the unit owner liable for interest on the levies and other debts?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies and other debts due to the body corporate by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10 percent per annum. 5
The Tribunal understands that the body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10 percent per annum on unpaid debts. Mr Leishman has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.
Under s 128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010, If a unit owner owes money to the body corporate for levies, repair works, or omissions, interest accrues upon the unpaid debt.
The tenant must pay interest on the levies and the body corporate’s costs incurred in pursuing the unpaid levies.
I order interest on the legal costs and body corporate manager costs for enforcing the Tribunal’s decision on historical levies.
It does not appear that s 128 applies to the outstanding disclosure document costs, however. I allow $87.98 for interest for BBCL’s invoices for enforcing the earlier Tribunal order, not the entire $244.16 sought, some of which related to the disclosure documents.

Should the unit owner be ordered to pay the filing fee?

Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim, the unit owner must reimburse the body corporate for the filing fee. 6

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038864 — Unit Titles in New Lynn, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9038864 — Unit Titles in New Lynn, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for the cost of disclosure documents?

Is the unit owner liable for interest on the levies and other debts?

Should the unit owner be ordered to pay the filing fee?

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Does the unit owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for the cost of disclosure documents?

Is the unit owner liable for interest on the levies and other debts?

Should the unit owner be ordered to pay the filing fee?