What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9060384?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned. If the Applicant has incurred any loss following 20

How much money was awarded in case 9060384?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9060384?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9060384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12155751-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9060384?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned. If the Applicant has incurred any loss following 20

How much money was awarded in case 9060384?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9060384?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9060384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12155751-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9060384 — Unit Titles

Order

The hearing is adjourned. If the Applicant has incurred any loss following 20 February 2019, and the parties cannot resolve the matter directly, the Applicant may request a further hearing in the Tribunal.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a unit owner against a body corporate. The Unit Owner seeks an order for compensation for being unable to use their car park in the course of repairs from earthquake damage to the complex.
The complex comprises residential apartments (the principal units), and includes carparks which are accessory units, on a ground level, below other units.
The background is not particularly disputed. Following an earthquake on 14 November 2016, there was structural damage to the complex. Following a building assessment, the Applicant (and other unit owners) were unable to use the carparks, I understand because of both safety concerns, and also given the carpark was needed for the works necessary to remediate the damage to the structure. The Applicant states that: Following the 2016 Earthquake the foundations of the Mendoza Complex foundations suffered damaged to the reinforced concrete transfer beams over the carparks between ground and first floor level. The damaged beams required structural propping to prevent further degradation of the beams and compromising of the building foundations. Due to the positioning of the beams the propping would obscure access to carparks to vary degrees. Of the 10 props installed 8 resulted in their unit owners be unable to use their carparks.
The Body Corporate has indicated that the carparks were restored by 23 November 2018, but the Applicant states it was January 2019.
In any event, compensation was sought from the Body Corporate. An insurance claim was lodged to cover losses in relation to the carparks, but that claim was declined.
On 28 November 2024 the Applicant lodged an application with the Tenancy Tribunal, however the filing fee for this was not paid until 20 February 2025.
A hearing was convened in Wellington on 23 July 2025 before myself. In attendance was Mr Ko (the Applicant) and representing the Body Corporate was Ms Jordon, the Chair.

APPLICANTS CASE

The Applicant’s case is that following an earthquake in 2016, there was damage to the concrete structures of the complex, and the recommendation was made to install bracing to the roof above the carparks, and this affected 8 unit owners in accessing the car parks.
At the time an enquiry was made to with the Body Corporate, and the Unit Owner was advised it would be ‘tough luck’. However a later manager recommended that this be taken to a Body Corporate meeting, and then it was agreed to apply on the insurance policy. A claim was made, and then that claim was later declined on the basis that it did not fall within the insurance policy.
The Unit Owner then went back to the Body Corporate, which declined to consider compensation, as too much time had passed since the matter first arose.
The Unit Owner notes that there has been more recent work at the complex, and the owners impacted were compensated for loss of their carparks. The Unit Owner considers that the approach taken has been inconsistent.

BODY CORPORATES CASE

The Body Corporate’s position is that despite asking for evidence showing costs or loss, this has not been provided. Further it is submitted that over the years this has not been raised by the Unit Owner.
The Body Corporate is also concerned that the Unit Owner is now out of time in advancing this claim.
Furthermore, Ms Jordon submitted that no evidence has been presented to the Body Corporate confirming any losses in relation to the carpark for the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, I advised the parties what the outcome from this hearing would be, so this written decision simply confirms that in writing.
While not discussed at the hearing, the Unit Titles Act 2010 applies. Section 84 sets out the powers and duties on a body corporate, and that includes the duties found in section 138.
Section 138 sets out the body corporate’s duty around repair and maintenance, and that requires that the body corporate repair and maintain any building elements or infrastructure that relate to or serve more than one unit. The term ‘building elements’ is defined in the interpretation section as including internal components of the building necessary for the structure of the building. The work to the ceiling / floor to repair the earthquake damage, unquestionably falls within that definition of infrastructure. Accordingly, as far as UTA is concerned, the responsibility to undertake the repairs fall only to the Body Corporate.
There is no reason that I can see, why the Unit Owner should not be compensated for losses incurred from being unable to access his carpark, which arose from the actions taken by the Body Corporate in the course of repairing and maintaining the building elements, as the law required it do.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that because of how bracing was installed to support the ceiling / floor above, the Applicant was not able to use the carpark. Therefore, there is a correlation between the potential loss for the Applicant 1 and work undertaken by the Body Corporate under its repair and maintenance duty. 1 The loss being any loss directly arising from being unable to use the carpark.

Is the claim out of time?

While strictly the Applicant can bring a claim against the Body Corporate for losses incurred, there is a time limit for such claims to be advanced.
As I noted at the hearing, the Limitation Act 2010 applies. Section 11 provides a defence to a respondent (the Body Corporate), when a claim is filed more than six years after the relevant event. Section 11(1) holds: 11 Defence to money claim filed after applicable period (1) It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period).
The ‘act or omission’ would be an inability to access the carpark.
The date on which the claim is filed, is the date of filing in the relevant court or Tribunal. In this case while the form was submitted on 28 November 2024, the Tribunal’s filing fee was not paid until 20 February 2019. I note here that the mechanical provisions for the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal when acting in its Unit Title Act jurisdiction, is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and in particular, part 3 of the RTA. Section 86 of the RTA (in part 3) relates to the filing of applications, and confirms that “Proceedings before the Tribunal are commenced by filing an application in the approved form, with any prescribed fee”. So a proceeding is commenced when the correct form is filed and the fee paid, which in this case was on 20 February 2019.
Returning now to the Limitation Act 2010. The Body Corporate has a defence to the claim for any money more than six years after the application was filed, which means that the applicant cannot pursue any claim for losses prior to 20 February 2019.
To put that another way, if the applicant can establish a loss in relation to the repair and maintenance of the car park, after 20 February 2019, then conceptually, he could claim that from the body corporate. Claim following 20 February 2019
As I indicated at the hearing today, I do not have any evidence on the Tribunal’s file as to the specific losses that might be the subject of any order. Ms Jordan advised that she was not aware of that evidence either.
The sensible approach is that given I have confirmed that potentially compensation could be ordered, if the applicant could establish his loss, that the hearing now be adjourned. Firstly the applicant will need to decide whether he has incurred any loss following 20 February 2019, if he has not, then that must be the end of the matter. However, if Mr Ko considers that he has incurred a loss after that date, then he should provide the evidence showing that loss to the Body Corporate, and the parties should engage to see whether the dispute can be resolved directly.
However, if the parties cannot resolve the matter directly, then that Mr Ko can seek a further order from the Tribunal, and I will schedule a further hearing at a later date to consider whether any money order can be made.

Order

The hearing is adjourned. If the Applicant has incurred any loss following 20 February 2019, and the parties cannot resolve the matter directly, the Applicant may request a further hearing in the Tribunal.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a unit owner against a body corporate. The Unit Owner seeks an order for compensation for being unable to use their car park in the course of repairs from earthquake damage to the complex.
The complex comprises residential apartments (the principal units), and includes carparks which are accessory units, on a ground level, below other units.
The background is not particularly disputed. Following an earthquake on 14 November 2016, there was structural damage to the complex. Following a building assessment, the Applicant (and other unit owners) were unable to use the carparks, I understand because of both safety concerns, and also given the carpark was needed for the works necessary to remediate the damage to the structure. The Applicant states that: Following the 2016 Earthquake the foundations of the Mendoza Complex foundations suffered damaged to the reinforced concrete transfer beams over the carparks between ground and first floor level. The damaged beams required structural propping to prevent further degradation of the beams and compromising of the building foundations. Due to the positioning of the beams the propping would obscure access to carparks to vary degrees. Of the 10 props installed 8 resulted in their unit owners be unable to use their carparks.
The Body Corporate has indicated that the carparks were restored by 23 November 2018, but the Applicant states it was January 2019.
In any event, compensation was sought from the Body Corporate. An insurance claim was lodged to cover losses in relation to the carparks, but that claim was declined.
On 28 November 2024 the Applicant lodged an application with the Tenancy Tribunal, however the filing fee for this was not paid until 20 February 2025.
A hearing was convened in Wellington on 23 July 2025 before myself. In attendance was Mr Ko (the Applicant) and representing the Body Corporate was Ms Jordon, the Chair.

APPLICANTS CASE

The Applicant’s case is that following an earthquake in 2016, there was damage to the concrete structures of the complex, and the recommendation was made to install bracing to the roof above the carparks, and this affected 8 unit owners in accessing the car parks.
At the time an enquiry was made to with the Body Corporate, and the Unit Owner was advised it would be ‘tough luck’. However a later manager recommended that this be taken to a Body Corporate meeting, and then it was agreed to apply on the insurance policy. A claim was made, and then that claim was later declined on the basis that it did not fall within the insurance policy.
The Unit Owner then went back to the Body Corporate, which declined to consider compensation, as too much time had passed since the matter first arose.
The Unit Owner notes that there has been more recent work at the complex, and the owners impacted were compensated for loss of their carparks. The Unit Owner considers that the approach taken has been inconsistent.

BODY CORPORATES CASE

The Body Corporate’s position is that despite asking for evidence showing costs or loss, this has not been provided. Further it is submitted that over the years this has not been raised by the Unit Owner.
The Body Corporate is also concerned that the Unit Owner is now out of time in advancing this claim.
Furthermore, Ms Jordon submitted that no evidence has been presented to the Body Corporate confirming any losses in relation to the carpark for the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, I advised the parties what the outcome from this hearing would be, so this written decision simply confirms that in writing.
While not discussed at the hearing, the Unit Titles Act 2010 applies. Section 84 sets out the powers and duties on a body corporate, and that includes the duties found in section 138.
Section 138 sets out the body corporate’s duty around repair and maintenance, and that requires that the body corporate repair and maintain any building elements or infrastructure that relate to or serve more than one unit. The term ‘building elements’ is defined in the interpretation section as including internal components of the building necessary for the structure of the building. The work to the ceiling / floor to repair the earthquake damage, unquestionably falls within that definition of infrastructure. Accordingly, as far as UTA is concerned, the responsibility to undertake the repairs fall only to the Body Corporate.
There is no reason that I can see, why the Unit Owner should not be compensated for losses incurred from being unable to access his carpark, which arose from the actions taken by the Body Corporate in the course of repairing and maintaining the building elements, as the law required it do.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that because of how bracing was installed to support the ceiling / floor above, the Applicant was not able to use the carpark. Therefore, there is a correlation between the potential loss for the Applicant 1 and work undertaken by the Body Corporate under its repair and maintenance duty. 1 The loss being any loss directly arising from being unable to use the carpark.

Is the claim out of time?

While strictly the Applicant can bring a claim against the Body Corporate for losses incurred, there is a time limit for such claims to be advanced.
As I noted at the hearing, the Limitation Act 2010 applies. Section 11 provides a defence to a respondent (the Body Corporate), when a claim is filed more than six years after the relevant event. Section 11(1) holds: 11 Defence to money claim filed after applicable period (1) It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period).
The ‘act or omission’ would be an inability to access the carpark.
The date on which the claim is filed, is the date of filing in the relevant court or Tribunal. In this case while the form was submitted on 28 November 2024, the Tribunal’s filing fee was not paid until 20 February 2019. I note here that the mechanical provisions for the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal when acting in its Unit Title Act jurisdiction, is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and in particular, part 3 of the RTA. Section 86 of the RTA (in part 3) relates to the filing of applications, and confirms that “Proceedings before the Tribunal are commenced by filing an application in the approved form, with any prescribed fee”. So a proceeding is commenced when the correct form is filed and the fee paid, which in this case was on 20 February 2019.
Returning now to the Limitation Act 2010. The Body Corporate has a defence to the claim for any money more than six years after the application was filed, which means that the applicant cannot pursue any claim for losses prior to 20 February 2019.
To put that another way, if the applicant can establish a loss in relation to the repair and maintenance of the car park, after 20 February 2019, then conceptually, he could claim that from the body corporate. Claim following 20 February 2019
As I indicated at the hearing today, I do not have any evidence on the Tribunal’s file as to the specific losses that might be the subject of any order. Ms Jordan advised that she was not aware of that evidence either.
The sensible approach is that given I have confirmed that potentially compensation could be ordered, if the applicant could establish his loss, that the hearing now be adjourned. Firstly the applicant will need to decide whether he has incurred any loss following 20 February 2019, if he has not, then that must be the end of the matter. However, if Mr Ko considers that he has incurred a loss after that date, then he should provide the evidence showing that loss to the Body Corporate, and the parties should engage to see whether the dispute can be resolved directly.
However, if the parties cannot resolve the matter directly, then that Mr Ko can seek a further order from the Tribunal, and I will schedule a further hearing at a later date to consider whether any money order can be made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9060384 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9060384 — Unit Titles in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

APPLICANTS CASE

BODY CORPORATES CASE

ANALYSIS

Is the claim out of time?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

APPLICANTS CASE

BODY CORPORATES CASE

ANALYSIS

Is the claim out of time?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions