What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9054304?

The tribunal order states: Rikki Ann Pitman must pay Body Corporate 335690 $20,066.49 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9054304?

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 9054304?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10900083-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9054304?

The tribunal order states: Rikki Ann Pitman must pay Body Corporate 335690 $20,066.49 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9054304?

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 9054304?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9054304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10900083-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9054304 — Cleanliness

Order

Rikki Ann Pitman must pay Body Corporate 335690 $20,066.49 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levies and utilities $11,151.06 Interest $1,287.11 Carpet cleaning $2,055.42 Collection costs $5,072.90 Filing Fee $500.00 Total payable by the respondent to the applicant $20,066.49

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, cleaning costs, legal costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

A unit owner must pay all body corporate levies and outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
Ms Pitman does not dispute this claim, so it is ordered by consent.

Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies by the due date, interest accrues on the unpaid balance. A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
Again Ms Pitman has not disputed the interest claim, so this is also ordered by consent.

Is the Unit Owner liable for the carpet cleaning costs?

The only disputed claim relates to carpet cleaning.
Both parties confirmed there was a leaking pipe at the premises. Ms Pitman confirmed that it was a pipe servicing her unit.
It is the case that as part of the remediation process for fixing the leaking pipe, the Body Corporate had carpets commercially cleaned in three units (one being Ms Pitman’s unit). Ms Pitman disputes that carpet cleaning was needed for two of those units, stating that the carpet cleaner advised it was not necessary for her unit at least.
At the hearing I heard evidence from Mr Abdust who is the Chair of the Body Corporate. Mr Abdust states that there was a body corporate resolution that any leaks be handled by the body corporate. The flooding occurred over the period of about a year, and the effect for the neighbouring units happened over some months. It was a long process to determine the cause of the leak, and it was ultimately determined that the leak was arising from Ms Pitman’s unit. When the work was undertaken, there was plaster dust throughout the units. Mr Abdust states that they would not normally get the approval of each unit, because of the mandate held by the body corporate committee.
In relation to this claim, I find that Mr Pitman is liable for the carpet cleaning costs, for these reasons.
Section 80 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 relates to the responsibility of unit owners, and that includes the following responsibilities: An owner of a principal unit- ... (g) must repair and maintain the unit and keep it in good order to ensure that no damage or harm, whether physical, economic, or otherwise, is, or has the potential to be, caused to the common property, any building element, any infrastructure, or any other unit in the building:
On the evidence available, it appears that the leaking pipe served Ms Pitman’s unit, so she would be responsible for it. That means the obligation sits with Ms Pitman to repair or maintain that pipe, so as to ensure there is no damage to other units in the premises. While I accept that there is no suggestion Ms Pitman could have known there was a problem with the pipe, the fact remains that once the pipe leaked, it became Ms Pitman’s responsibility for repair.
In this case the Body Corporate stepped in to facilitate the repair, in effect undertaking that repair in the shoes of the unit owner, and I can see no reason why the unit owner should not be responsible for the costs involved with that, including the carpet cleaning.
Section 127 of the UTA confirms that when the body corporate does any work because of a breach on the part of a unit owner (breach in the sense of maintenance and repair being needed of the leaking pipe), then the body corporate can recover the cost of doing that work from the unit owner in question.
I have no reason to believe that the Body Corporate was not acting in good faith, or on a reasonable basis when it engaged the carpet cleaner as it did. I can see no reason why Ms Pitman would not be liable for the subsequent charges.
The end result is that this claim is established.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 124 UTA, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, 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. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable and they are awarded in full.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054304 — Cleanliness in Te Aro, Wellington

Tenancy Tribunal case 9054304 — Cleanliness in Te Aro, Wellington

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit Owner liable for the carpet cleaning costs?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit Owner liable for the carpet cleaning costs?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?