Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9060104 — Cleanliness in Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 8 Apr 2025 · Published 8 Apr 2025 · Application 9060104
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The party], [The party] must pay Body Corporate 366567 $12,774.69 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Ordinary Levy: Operational Levy due 31/1/25 $2,933.77 Ordinary Levy: Cleaning Levies$1,171.62 Ordinary Levy: Water charges$2,427.11 Interest on levies $190.31 Costs: PBB costs as per invoice$4,871.88 Costs: Costs at hearing .75$277.50 Filing Fee$500.00 Costs: Body Corporate charges$402.50 Total award$12,774.69 Total interest Total award with interest$12,774.69 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $12,774.69
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Fenton attended for the Body Corporate and Mr Nung attended for the owner.
- The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, 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.
- 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. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010. The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.
- The body corporate has issued metered charges pursuant to s125 Unit Titles Act for water and cleaning. These charges remain unpaid, and the recovery of the charges is treated as if it were a levy (see s125(2) Unit Titles Act).
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.
- The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.
- The owner does not dispute the amount or liability of the levies charges or interest owed.
Is the Unit owner liable for costs?
- The only amounts sought by the body corporate that are disputed are the body corporate charges and the costs sought by Price Baker Berridge. The owner considers that these charges are disproportionate to the levies/ charges owed and the costs are not ‘reasonable’.
- Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, 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.
- I have reviewed the minutes of the body corporate which appointed Price Baker Berridge as their lawyers and the timesheets by Price Baker Berridge. The amount charged is for the work that has been done, the charge out rates were disclosed in the Letter of Engagement which was signed by the body corporate and Ms Fenton tells me that the invoice has been sent and will be paid in full by the body corporate regardless of what amount is ordered by the Tribunal. In essence the body corporate has agreed to the fees that have been charged and has raised no concerns about the reasonableness of the fees.
- The Tribunal see applications for levies from body corporates on a daily basis. Whilst it is true that Price Baker Berrdige’s costs are at the higher end of the spectrum and that other lawyers charge between $2000- $3000 for similar work, that is largely because the hourly rates are higher. Price Baker Berridge would without doubt submit that this is because they have expertise in this area of law, and it is true that they are in front of the Tribunal regularly. The work completed is reasonable to get the file to hearing. The body corporate has accepted the fees in the letters of engagement and therefore it is difficult for the Tribunal to consider that the hourly rates are unreasonable.
- I consider the fees are reasonable because they have been agreed to by the body corporate and the work done by Price Baker Berridge is of a nature and extent that would be expected.
- 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.