What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9062984 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 196030 $7,912.57 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 9062984?

Body Corporate Debt Collection Charg…: $920.50 awarded to landlord; Costs: Legal: $3,488.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: $438.55 awarded to landlord; Levies: $2,565.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062984?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675069-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9062984 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 196030 $7,912.57 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 9062984?

Body Corporate Debt Collection Charg…: $920.50 awarded to landlord; Costs: Legal: $3,488.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: $438.55 awarded to landlord; Levies: $2,565.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062984?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062984?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675069-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Newmarket, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9062984 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062984 — net $7,912.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25	$438.55	Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25
Body Corporate debt collection charges	$920.50	Body Corporate debt collection charges
Levies	$2,565.02	Levies
Costs: Legal	$3,488.50	Costs: Legal
Filing fee	$500.00	Filing fee
Net award	$7,912.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,912.57

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 196030 $7,912.57 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levies$2,565.02 Costs: Legal $3,488.50 Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25 Body Corporate debt collection charges $438.55 $920.50 Filing fee$500.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $7,912.57

Reasons

Only the applicant attended the hearing.
The Body Corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner. The respondents has defaulted with respect to payment of levies in connection with the unit.

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 amounts claimed and ordered above for levies.

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 proven the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date, as ordered above.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

The Body Corporate claims the sums of $3,488.50 for legal costs and Body Corporate administration charges of $920.50.
The requirement to meet Body Corporate collection charges is the subject of resolutions recorded in the Annual General Meeting minutes of the Body Corporate.
Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover all “debt collecting costs” by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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. 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185.
The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4
The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the relevant legal framework as follows: 5 a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.
Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.
At para [8], the Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted. (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way. Analysis and application of the law The legal costs
I deal first with the legal costs that are claimed and then with the Body Corporate costs.
Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the time records associated with the legal costs. I note that as well as time records, the Body Corporate has also submitted a copy of the relevant terms of engagement letter from its solicitors, which sets out the range of charge-out rates for those who would be working on the matter.
The terms of engagement does not give an estimate of costs, which is perhaps unusual, given the solicitors would have a very good understanding of the sort of fee likely to be charged in this sort of application, at least on an undefended basis.
I am satisfied that the material filed shows that: a) the work undertaken was likely similar to other applications of this nature, but still need to be checked and completed carefully, b) to save cost, various aspects of the work were undertaken and charged out by staff at lower charge out rates, d) there appeared to be no double up between staff, and e) there were no unnecessary attendances.
Even although the work might be regarded as somewhat formulaic, consistent with similar applications of this nature made before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that all of these steps that were undertaken are required to ensure the information is correct and the relevant material completed correctly with respect to this particular case. Just because the application might be regarded as generic or similar to many other applications does not mean a rigorous approach should not be taken to ensuring that the documentation is completed correctly.
I find that the billing records disclose no inefficiencies or any inappropriate recording of time.
Whether or not there is a conditional fee agreement in place is a rule 9.1 consideration I am required to take into account. I consider that this entails assessing whether or not the Body Corporate will be required to pay the full amount of the invoice claimed, in the event the applicant is unsuccessful in claiming those costs today. In relation to the rule 9.1 factors, the Body Corporate submits that there is no conditional fee agreement or “arrangement” relating to its payment. The invoice will therefore be paid regardless of the outcome of this application.
Given the amount of unpaid levies, a reduction of time charged may have been considered and applied to the final amount charged, as a commercial approach. The legal costs exceed the amount being pursued for levies. Taking a “standing back assessment”, however, I am of the view that on the facts of this case, the legal costs that have been charged would, in this case, be within the standard commercial range for this sort of work.
I note further that the incurring of these costs by a unit holder only arises following letters of demand and follow-ups first by the Body Corporate and then by the Solicitors acting. The unit holder is therefore given every opportunity to pay and advice that they will be liable for costs in the event the arrears are not paid.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the actual solicitor and client costs are, in the circumstances of this case, reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levies and can therefore be recovered from the unit owner. The Body Corporate costs 24In relation to the Body Corporate charges, the Body Corporate submits that it charges a set fee for every stage of the debt collection process, from monitoring compliance through to sending out reminders. These fees are all resolved in AGM minutes that that there can be no argument that unit holders are unaware of them. I am satisfied, based on the submissions made, that they are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Had payment been made following these reminders then it would have avoided the need to instruct solicitors.
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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062984 — net $7,912.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25	$438.55	Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25
Body Corporate debt collection charges	$920.50	Body Corporate debt collection charges
Levies	$2,565.02	Levies
Costs: Legal	$3,488.50	Costs: Legal
Filing fee	$500.00	Filing fee
Net award	$7,912.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,912.57

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 196030 $7,912.57 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levies$2,565.02 Costs: Legal $3,488.50 Interest from 19.1.22 to 4.3.25 Body Corporate debt collection charges $438.55 $920.50 Filing fee$500.00 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $7,912.57

Reasons

Only the applicant attended the hearing.
The Body Corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner. The respondents has defaulted with respect to payment of levies in connection with the unit.

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 amounts claimed and ordered above for levies.

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 proven the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date, as ordered above.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

The Body Corporate claims the sums of $3,488.50 for legal costs and Body Corporate administration charges of $920.50.
The requirement to meet Body Corporate collection charges is the subject of resolutions recorded in the Annual General Meeting minutes of the Body Corporate.
Pursuant to section 124 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover all “debt collecting costs” by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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. 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185.
The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4
The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the relevant legal framework as follows: 5 a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.
Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.
At para [8], the Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted. (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way. Analysis and application of the law The legal costs
I deal first with the legal costs that are claimed and then with the Body Corporate costs.
Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the time records associated with the legal costs. I note that as well as time records, the Body Corporate has also submitted a copy of the relevant terms of engagement letter from its solicitors, which sets out the range of charge-out rates for those who would be working on the matter.
The terms of engagement does not give an estimate of costs, which is perhaps unusual, given the solicitors would have a very good understanding of the sort of fee likely to be charged in this sort of application, at least on an undefended basis.
I am satisfied that the material filed shows that: a) the work undertaken was likely similar to other applications of this nature, but still need to be checked and completed carefully, b) to save cost, various aspects of the work were undertaken and charged out by staff at lower charge out rates, d) there appeared to be no double up between staff, and e) there were no unnecessary attendances.
Even although the work might be regarded as somewhat formulaic, consistent with similar applications of this nature made before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that all of these steps that were undertaken are required to ensure the information is correct and the relevant material completed correctly with respect to this particular case. Just because the application might be regarded as generic or similar to many other applications does not mean a rigorous approach should not be taken to ensuring that the documentation is completed correctly.
I find that the billing records disclose no inefficiencies or any inappropriate recording of time.
Whether or not there is a conditional fee agreement in place is a rule 9.1 consideration I am required to take into account. I consider that this entails assessing whether or not the Body Corporate will be required to pay the full amount of the invoice claimed, in the event the applicant is unsuccessful in claiming those costs today. In relation to the rule 9.1 factors, the Body Corporate submits that there is no conditional fee agreement or “arrangement” relating to its payment. The invoice will therefore be paid regardless of the outcome of this application.
Given the amount of unpaid levies, a reduction of time charged may have been considered and applied to the final amount charged, as a commercial approach. The legal costs exceed the amount being pursued for levies. Taking a “standing back assessment”, however, I am of the view that on the facts of this case, the legal costs that have been charged would, in this case, be within the standard commercial range for this sort of work.
I note further that the incurring of these costs by a unit holder only arises following letters of demand and follow-ups first by the Body Corporate and then by the Solicitors acting. The unit holder is therefore given every opportunity to pay and advice that they will be liable for costs in the event the arrears are not paid.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the actual solicitor and client costs are, in the circumstances of this case, reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levies and can therefore be recovered from the unit owner. The Body Corporate costs 24In relation to the Body Corporate charges, the Body Corporate submits that it charges a set fee for every stage of the debt collection process, from monitoring compliance through to sending out reminders. These fees are all resolved in AGM minutes that that there can be no argument that unit holders are unaware of them. I am satisfied, based on the submissions made, that they are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Had payment been made following these reminders then it would have avoided the need to instruct solicitors.
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 9062984 — Tenancy dispute in Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062984 — Tenancy dispute in Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.