What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9045944 about?

The tribunal order states: Centurion Management Services Limited must return all monies it

How much money was awarded in case 9045944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9045944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9045944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10035918-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9045944 about?

The tribunal order states: Centurion Management Services Limited must return all monies it

How much money was awarded in case 9045944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9045944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9045944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10035918-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Albany, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9045944 — Unit Titles

Order

Centurion Management Services Limited must return all monies it owes Body Corporate 211974 in respect to its body corporate management services by 5 April 2024.

Reasons

Introduction

This is a rehearing of the Tribunal’s hearing and decision of 8 December 2023. In that decision, the Tribunal ordered Centurion to pay the body corporate $33,830.49 for funds held in trust and for costs.
Unfortunately, the respondent’s representative, Mr Craig, could not attend the hearing due to illness and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Centurion subsequently applied for a rehearing. The Tribunal ordered a rehearing to avoid a miscarriage of justice due to the respondent not having had the opportunity to present a defence to the claim.
At the rehearing today, Clinton Baker and Briar Dobson appeared for the applicant, the body corporate. Colin Craig appeared for the Centurion. Mr Craig is Centurion’s managing director. Background
The body corporate seeks an order that Centurion release funds it holds on trust for the body corporate.
Sometime in September 2002, the body corporate appointed Centurion to provide body corporate management services.
On 9 September 2002, the body corporate contracted with Centurion to supply and manage a bulk power supply to the body corporate buildings for the body corporate. Centurion was appointed the sole agent for power supply and was authorised to invoice unit owners and tenants directly. Centurion agreed to “be responsible for and use it’s best endeavours to collect all monies owed to the Body Corporate”.
The body corporate submitted a letter dated 27 September 2017 purporting to terminate the agreement with Centurion for management services from 31 October 2017. Mr Craig submits that the purported termination was defective, and that the body corporate management agreement was in fact not correctly terminated until 2021.
The 27 September 2017 letter asks Centurion to “transfer the funds held on behalf of the Body Corporate 211974 to SHAY Strata Solutions Ltd’. The letter does not terminate the agreement for Centurion to supply and manage bulk power, however. Centurion continued to supply and manage the power. It continued to invoice the unit owners and tenants directly for the power they used.
On 3 June 2021, the body corporate’s solicitor emailed Centurion to “ensure that files and funds are transferred by no later than 9 June 2021”.
On 17 April 2023, Centurion forwarded Shay Solutions’ (the body corporate’s replacement body corporate manager) accounts team a printout of Centurion’s statement of account relating to the body corporate. The balance of the account is $25,119.89. The account shows deposits being made from October 2022 to 30 March 2023. Mr Craig says the deposits are from unit owners and tenants for their volumetric use of power. It appears Centurion sends parallel invoices to the body corporate for the power charges. 1 1 Applicant’s bundle page 21ffing.
The body corporate accounts team were utterly confused by the printout. It asked its manager, “Is this for GST returns? I’m not sure what this is for. Could you please advise?”
On 18 April 2023, Shay’s principal emailed its solicitors: I am not sure where everything is alt with dealing to Centurion for BC211974 but I have just received these statements and it indicates that they still have $25k which should be in the Body Corporate bank account not Centurion’s Trust Account.
On 26 June 2023, the body corporate’s solicitors emailed Centurion asking it to transfer the $25,119.89 to them within two working days. Discussion
Mr Craig says that after its contract for body corporate services was terminated, Centurion returned some but not all of the body corporate’s funds held in respect to the services.
Centurion used the same account to run the power supply and continues to do so. The monies are intermingled. Mr Craig was unsure of the exact further amount that Centurion should return to the body corporate for the management services.
Mr Baker submits that all of the money in the account is the body corporate’s. Centurion holds all of the funds on trust. The body corporate is entitled to direct that Centurion returns its funds at any time, which it has done on several occasions and most recently on 26 June 2023. It is irrelevant that some of the funds come from unit owners’ and tenants’ payments for power that Centurion has supplied because those monies belong to the body corporate also.
In my view Centurion must account for all funds belonging to the body corporate for Centurion’s terminated body corporate management services.
I am not persuaded it would be appropriate to order that Centurion return the body corporate’s funds related to power supply at this time. The body corporate has not terminated the power supply agreement. I accept in principle, the body corporate could direct Centurion to return its funds related to the supply of power even without terminating the agreement, but I do not consider the body corporate has made an appropriate direction such that the Tribunal should order return of the funds relating to power supply. The directions for repayment were premised on the termination of the body corporate management services agreement, not the power supply agreement. Shay Solutions was unaware of the nature of Centurion’s funds and assumed they must be held without authority when they were properly held. Conclusion
Centurion must return the funds it holds relating to the now defunct management agreement but not the power supply agreement.
There will have to be a process to establish what Centurion owes. I leave it to the parties to cooperate on that. Presumably, they will need to review the relevant documents to isolate the funds Centurion held for its management services at the time its services were terminated and calculate interest and any applicable credits and deductions. Costs
The issue of costs is reserved.
If the parties cannot agree on costs, the body corporate is to file its submissions on costs by 15 March 2024 and Centurion is to file its response by 22 March 2024.

Order

Centurion Management Services Limited must return all monies it owes Body Corporate 211974 in respect to its body corporate management services by 5 April 2024.

Reasons

Introduction

This is a rehearing of the Tribunal’s hearing and decision of 8 December 2023. In that decision, the Tribunal ordered Centurion to pay the body corporate $33,830.49 for funds held in trust and for costs.
Unfortunately, the respondent’s representative, Mr Craig, could not attend the hearing due to illness and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Centurion subsequently applied for a rehearing. The Tribunal ordered a rehearing to avoid a miscarriage of justice due to the respondent not having had the opportunity to present a defence to the claim.
At the rehearing today, Clinton Baker and Briar Dobson appeared for the applicant, the body corporate. Colin Craig appeared for the Centurion. Mr Craig is Centurion’s managing director. Background
The body corporate seeks an order that Centurion release funds it holds on trust for the body corporate.
Sometime in September 2002, the body corporate appointed Centurion to provide body corporate management services.
On 9 September 2002, the body corporate contracted with Centurion to supply and manage a bulk power supply to the body corporate buildings for the body corporate. Centurion was appointed the sole agent for power supply and was authorised to invoice unit owners and tenants directly. Centurion agreed to “be responsible for and use it’s best endeavours to collect all monies owed to the Body Corporate”.
The body corporate submitted a letter dated 27 September 2017 purporting to terminate the agreement with Centurion for management services from 31 October 2017. Mr Craig submits that the purported termination was defective, and that the body corporate management agreement was in fact not correctly terminated until 2021.
The 27 September 2017 letter asks Centurion to “transfer the funds held on behalf of the Body Corporate 211974 to SHAY Strata Solutions Ltd’. The letter does not terminate the agreement for Centurion to supply and manage bulk power, however. Centurion continued to supply and manage the power. It continued to invoice the unit owners and tenants directly for the power they used.
On 3 June 2021, the body corporate’s solicitor emailed Centurion to “ensure that files and funds are transferred by no later than 9 June 2021”.
On 17 April 2023, Centurion forwarded Shay Solutions’ (the body corporate’s replacement body corporate manager) accounts team a printout of Centurion’s statement of account relating to the body corporate. The balance of the account is $25,119.89. The account shows deposits being made from October 2022 to 30 March 2023. Mr Craig says the deposits are from unit owners and tenants for their volumetric use of power. It appears Centurion sends parallel invoices to the body corporate for the power charges. 1 1 Applicant’s bundle page 21ffing.
The body corporate accounts team were utterly confused by the printout. It asked its manager, “Is this for GST returns? I’m not sure what this is for. Could you please advise?”
On 18 April 2023, Shay’s principal emailed its solicitors: I am not sure where everything is alt with dealing to Centurion for BC211974 but I have just received these statements and it indicates that they still have $25k which should be in the Body Corporate bank account not Centurion’s Trust Account.
On 26 June 2023, the body corporate’s solicitors emailed Centurion asking it to transfer the $25,119.89 to them within two working days. Discussion
Mr Craig says that after its contract for body corporate services was terminated, Centurion returned some but not all of the body corporate’s funds held in respect to the services.
Centurion used the same account to run the power supply and continues to do so. The monies are intermingled. Mr Craig was unsure of the exact further amount that Centurion should return to the body corporate for the management services.
Mr Baker submits that all of the money in the account is the body corporate’s. Centurion holds all of the funds on trust. The body corporate is entitled to direct that Centurion returns its funds at any time, which it has done on several occasions and most recently on 26 June 2023. It is irrelevant that some of the funds come from unit owners’ and tenants’ payments for power that Centurion has supplied because those monies belong to the body corporate also.
In my view Centurion must account for all funds belonging to the body corporate for Centurion’s terminated body corporate management services.
I am not persuaded it would be appropriate to order that Centurion return the body corporate’s funds related to power supply at this time. The body corporate has not terminated the power supply agreement. I accept in principle, the body corporate could direct Centurion to return its funds related to the supply of power even without terminating the agreement, but I do not consider the body corporate has made an appropriate direction such that the Tribunal should order return of the funds relating to power supply. The directions for repayment were premised on the termination of the body corporate management services agreement, not the power supply agreement. Shay Solutions was unaware of the nature of Centurion’s funds and assumed they must be held without authority when they were properly held. Conclusion
Centurion must return the funds it holds relating to the now defunct management agreement but not the power supply agreement.
There will have to be a process to establish what Centurion owes. I leave it to the parties to cooperate on that. Presumably, they will need to review the relevant documents to isolate the funds Centurion held for its management services at the time its services were terminated and calculate interest and any applicable credits and deductions. Costs
The issue of costs is reserved.
If the parties cannot agree on costs, the body corporate is to file its submissions on costs by 15 March 2024 and Centurion is to file its response by 22 March 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9045944 — Unit Titles in Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9045944 — Unit Titles in Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions