What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9048944 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9048944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9048944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9048944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995664-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9048944 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9048944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9048944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9048944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995664-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9048944 — Unit Titles

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This application has a long history. It was submitted in November 2023. At that time, the body corporate was seeking outstanding levies of $989.63, costs of $6008.78 and interest of $78.98. By the date of hearing the costs claimed were more than $15,000. Levies were up to date.

The day before this hearing, the Body Corporate purported to amend the claim to include approximately $10,000 of “on charges” incurred well after the application was filed. I declined to allow the amendment. The body corporate did not properly request an amendment and the owner did not have proper notice or sufficient time to consider it.

The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The claim arises from levy recovery costs incurred from August 2023. The body corporate manager provided the unit owner with a statement and total amount outstanding on 23 August 2023. The owners paid the full amount stated by the Body Corporate manager the same day; $6,059.66. The body corporate confirmed that the amount claimed included the full amount owing for both units as at that date.

However, the Body Corporate manager then replied to the owners by email on 26 August 2023 thanking them for the payment and noting that unit 1420 was in arrears of $246.01 and 1320 in arrears of $246.00

The owners did not understand how that could have occurred in the three days since they paid the full amount claimed and have been seeking an explanation since August 2023.

The body corporate representative was unable to provide a clear explanation at the hearing, notwithstanding that that issue is at the heart of this dispute. Whether there was an amount owing from 26 August 2023 is key to whether or not the owner’s levy account has been in arrears and whether debt recovery costs have been properly incurred since that time.

This application has become a self-perpetuating claim for costs, without the body corporate standing back and providing a clear response to a reasonable request from the owner. What was the $246.00 per unit for, given the owners had paid the full amount requested from the body corporate manager three days earlier?

The body corporate representative noted that the amount claimed by the manager was less than she had sought in a letter to the owners on 18 August 2023. However, there is no evidence that the owners received that letter as it was sent to the wrong email address.

It was apparent that neither party had provided me with the full communication chain regarding these claims. The Body Corporate, as applicant, has the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that the levies and costs are owed by the unit owner.

In the absence of a clear explanation of the $246 claimed for each unit on 26 August 2023, the body corporate has failed to establish that the owner has been in arrears or owes any of the amounts claimed in this application, including substantial costs of over $15,000 up to the date of hearing.

It was not reasonable for the body corporate to continue to incur debt recovery costs without reviewing the ledger and understanding whether or not the unit owner was in arrears, and if they were, the body corporate should have been able to identify what was outstanding, and when.

The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application has a long history. It was submitted in November 2023. At that time, the body corporate was seeking outstanding levies of $989.63, costs of $6008.78 and interest of $78.98. By the date of hearing the costs claimed were more than $15,000. Levies were up to date.
The day before this hearing, the Body Corporate purported to amend the claim to include approximately $10,000 of “on charges” incurred well after the application was filed. I declined to allow the amendment. The body corporate did not properly request an amendment and the owner did not have proper notice or sufficient time to consider it.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The claim arises from levy recovery costs incurred from August 2023. The body corporate manager provided the unit owner with a statement and total amount outstanding on 23 August 2023. The owners paid the full amount stated by the Body Corporate manager the same day; $6,059.66. The body corporate confirmed that the amount claimed included the full amount owing for both units as at that date.
However, the Body Corporate manager then replied to the owners by email on 26 August 2023 thanking them for the payment and noting that unit 1420 was in arrears of $246.01 and 1320 in arrears of $246.00
The owners did not understand how that could have occurred in the three days since they paid the full amount claimed and have been seeking an explanation since August 2023.
The body corporate representative was unable to provide a clear explanation at the hearing, notwithstanding that that issue is at the heart of this dispute. Whether there was an amount owing from 26 August 2023 is key to whether or not the owner’s levy account has been in arrears and whether debt recovery costs have been properly incurred since that time.
This application has become a self-perpetuating claim for costs, without the body corporate standing back and providing a clear response to a reasonable request from the owner. What was the $246.00 per unit for, given the owners had paid the full amount requested from the body corporate manager three days earlier?
The body corporate representative noted that the amount claimed by the manager was less than she had sought in a letter to the owners on 18 August 2023. However, there is no evidence that the owners received that letter as it was sent to the wrong email address.
It was apparent that neither party had provided me with the full communication chain regarding these claims. The Body Corporate, as applicant, has the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that the levies and costs are owed by the unit owner.
In the absence of a clear explanation of the $246 claimed for each unit on 26 August 2023, the body corporate has failed to establish that the owner has been in arrears or owes any of the amounts claimed in this application, including substantial costs of over $15,000 up to the date of hearing.
It was not reasonable for the body corporate to continue to incur debt recovery costs without reviewing the ledger and understanding whether or not the unit owner was in arrears, and if they were, the body corporate should have been able to identify what was outstanding, and when.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9048944 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9048944 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, 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