What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9064284 about?

The tribunal order states: JD Zhang NZ Limited must pay Body Corporate 582896 the sum of $6,747.99

How much money was awarded in case 9064284?

Appearance Cost: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawyer Charges: $4,637.99 awarded to landlord; Manager Charges: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064284?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12381680-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9064284 about?

The tribunal order states: JD Zhang NZ Limited must pay Body Corporate 582896 the sum of $6,747.99

How much money was awarded in case 9064284?

Appearance Cost: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawyer Charges: $4,637.99 awarded to landlord; Manager Charges: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064284?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12381680-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Hobsonville, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9064284 — Unit Titles

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9064284. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Manager charges	$920.00	Manager charges
Lawyer charges	$4,637.99	Lawyer charges
Appearance cost	$690.00	Appearance cost
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9064284. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Manager charges	$920.00	Manager charges
Lawyer charges	$4,637.99	Lawyer charges
Appearance cost	$690.00	Appearance cost
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee

Order

JD Zhang NZ Limited must pay Body Corporate 582896 the sum of $6,747.99 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicant Manager charges$920.00 Lawyer charges$4,637.99 Appearance cost$690.00 Filing Fee$500.00 Total award$6,747.99

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Body Corporate, seeking costs incurred, in relation to the recovery of levies. The levies have been paid, but what remains is a dispute over the collection costs that apply.
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

I will summarise the background as succinctly as possible. a. The premises are unit-titled premises. The respondent is JD Zhang NZ Limited, the unit owner of principal unit 2. Liu Yang is the sole director and shareholder of the company. Over the course of the dispute, Ms Yang has been represented by her daughter Ms Cui, and her husband-in-law, Mr Zhang. b. On 23 July 2025, a levy invoice was raised and issued to the Unit Owner for the amount of $3,996.62. That was for one year of levies between June 2024 and May 2025. The payment was required by 1 August 2024. The Unit Owners’ position is that this invoice (and later correspondence) was not received, because at the relevant time she was in China, and unable to access Gmail services. c. When the levies were not paid, the Manager issued a reminder notice on 20 August 2025. d. The Manager sent further notices on 28 August 2025, 5 September 2025 and 24 September 2024, continuing to seek payment of the outstanding levies, and the additional Manager’s costs, and giving warnings if the payment was not made that further debt recovery action would be taken. e. On 4 November 2024, Bruce Zhang emailed the Body Corporate Manager, advising of the absence of the unit owner, and language difficulties, and requesting that communications go via himself. The Unit Owner states that no response was received to that email. f. The matter was referred to a legal firm, Price Baker Berridge (PBB), to commence proceedings to recover the outstanding levies and costs. g. On 11 November 2024, PBB wrote to the Unit Owner, advising that it represents the Body Corporate, that the outstanding levies were $3,996.62, and that collection costs of $920.00 from the Manager and $1,183.64 were owed for work from PBB. The Unit Owner was required to pay those sums by 18 November 2024, otherwise proceedings may be commenced to recover the debt. h. On 15 November 2024, Mr Zhang made a payment of the outstanding levies amount ($3,996.62). i. On 19 November 2024, PBB again wrote to the Unit Owner, advising that the payment received while covering the levies, did not cover the outstanding costs. PBB advised the debt owed by that time was $2,339.09, which needed to be paid by 26 November 2024 to avoid proceedings to recover the debt. j. On 25 November 2024, Mr Zhang emailed PBB and the Manager, disputing the charges and inviting discussion on the matter, but the Unit Owner’s position is that no response was received. k. On 24 February 2025, PBB filed an application with the Tribunal on behalf of the Body Corporate, seeking only collection costs ($3,491.44) and interest ($120.45). l. The Tribunal scheduled a video hearing on 21 May 2025 to consider the Body Corporate’s claim. That was adjourned. m. The Unit Owner continued to attempt engagement with the Body Corporate via PBB, seeking to settle this dispute. On 20 August 2025, the Manager advised that given the length and progress of the dispute, they wished to proceed to the Tenancy Tribunal. n. On 28 August 2025, the Unit Owner paid the interest charged ($120.45). o. A second hearing was scheduled before the Tribunal on 8 September 2025. That hearing proceeded before Adjudicator Prowse. Ms Prowse records that:
Ms Yang is the sole director of the JD Zhang NZ limited which owns the unit. Ms Yang says that because her English is not good, she asks her son Mr Bruce Zhang and her daughter in law Sharon Cui to assist her in all her legal matters including the ownership of the unit.
In August last year Ms Lang was overseas, she says that she did not receive the invoice for the levies that were due for her unit of $3,996.62 and it was only when she returned to New Zealand that she became aware that her levies were overdue.
Ms Yang says that her son Mr Zhang corresponded with the Body Corporate on the 4 November 2024 and told them that due to language barriers and limited internet access Ms Lang had not paid the levies. Mr Zhang says that in order to avoid the situation arising in the future he asked if the Body Corporate would update their contact information to include Mr Zhang’s information.
Ms Yang says that no-one responded to this correspondence. p. The hearing before Ms Prowse was adjourned. The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the Unit Owner had a sufficient opportunity to obtain legal advice and given the complexity of the matter. Ms Prowse directed that submissions be filed in advance of the reconvened hearing. q. The hearing was then scheduled to 8 September 2025. Unfortunately Ms Prowse was unable to proceed with this hearing, hence I have heard the claim in her place. The hearing proceeded on 8 September. In attendance was Mr MacFayden from PBB appearing for the Body Corporate, and representing the Unit Owner was Ms Cui and Mr Zhang.

BODY CORPORATES CLAIMS

The Body Corporate submits that while the levies were paid, the Unit Owner has not paid the collection costs. The Body Corporate maintain that the costs are reasonable, and should be ordered under section 124.
Mr MacFadyen refers to the written submissions which set out the steps taken in recovering the debt, along with the legal basis for the costs to be ordered.
The Body Corporate claims total costs of $6,868.44, comprising: a. Managers’ debt collection costs$920.00 b. Lawyers costs$4,637.99 c. Mr MacFadyen’s appearance cost$690.00 d. Filing fee$500.00 e. Interest$120.00

UNIT OWNERS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the Unit Owner was represented by Ms Cui.
Ms Cui states that the unit owner is elderly, does not speak English, and is not familiar with legal processes in New Zealand.
It was submitted that the Tribunal should consider two key considerations, that is: a. What steps were taken to recover the levy, noting that there were no calls or messages to the owner’s son, and further, there is a representative on site who did not engage directly with them. b. Secondly, it is questioned what work was actually undertaken by PBB in order to justify the fees.
It was submitted that efforts were made to try to resolve the dispute directly, but rather the Body Corporate has forced the matter to the Tribunal, using public resources.
It was submitted that the amount of the costs claimed have been disproportionate to the actual amount of the original claim.
It was submitted that this has caused significant stress and inconvenience to the family members.
Written submissions have also been filed, and those contained 6 submissions: a. The Unit Owner has acted in good faith, paying the levies and interest when they became aware that those were outstanding. b. The Body Corporate failed to update the contact details when contacted by Mr Zhang. c. The Body Corporate was too hasty with escalating the matter to the Tribunal, and should have engaged with the Unit Owner first. d. The legal costs claimed are disproportionate and excessive. e. The Unit Owner is vulnerable as a retired elderly person who does not speak English, and is up against a professionally managed Body Corporate with specialist lawyers. f. When the invoices came to the notice of the Unit Owner (via Mr Zhang) the levies were paid.

ANALYSIS

The dispute in this case is solely in relation to collection costs. There is no dispute between the parties that levies were due and payable by the Unit Owner, and it is also not disputed that those levies were paid late. The invoice required the levies to be paid by 1 August 2024, but they were not paid until 15 November 2024, about 2 ½ months late.
In the course of that, the Body Corporate has incurred costs from the Manager and PBB, with an associated cost from the Tenancy Tribunal for the filing fee. What I must consider, is whether those costs should be paid by the Unit Owner, but for the reasons I will now set out, I find they must.
I begin by noting the statutory scheme, that is the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). The UTA sets out the expectations that apply between various parties in a unit titled development, but importantly between the body corporate and the unit owners.
The UTA provides powers for the body corporate to raise levies, and then it provides an obligation on the unit owner to pay the levies raised.
Levies are in effect the lifeblood of the body corporate, because the money must be raised so that the complex can operate, such as paying for insurance for the complex (which the UTA requires), and also undertaking a range of other critical activities such as maintenance, paying rates etc.
Being able to receive funding by way of levies is so important that the UTA provides express provisions around collecting the levies, and in particular, transferring the cost of recovering the levy onto the defaulting unit owner. Section 124 of the UTA relates to the recovery of levies, and confirms that: The amount of any unpaid levy, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy, is recoverable as a debt due to the body corporate by the person who was the unit owner at the time the levy became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time the proceedings are instituted.
The courts have considered a number of appeals over the years, around the question of how section 124 should be interpreted. There is significant consistency in those decisions, but in this case Mr MacFayden has referred to the decision of Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirand & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645. In that case the District Court confirmed that actual costs (called solicitor/client costs) can be awarded when those costs arise in the collection of levies, and when they are reasonable, that is the result of section 124.
The Court confirmed that the touchstone to consider whether the costs claimed are reasonable, requires an objective assessment of the evidence, and that includes considering factors such as: a. Whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; and b. Whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable.
I also note the earlier decision from the District Court of Body Corporate 85928 v Simon Peter Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535. In that case, the Body Corporate had appealed against a decision of the Tribunal which ordered a reduction of the costs claimed in the recovery of the levy against Mr Sherry. After considering the case, Judge Becroft concluded: The approach must be that set out in the Court of Appeal case and the two District Court decisions counsel referred to. That is, the word “reasonable” primarily relates to the reasonableness of the costs incurred and will involve a careful check of the bill of costs presented to the Court and whether they relate to reasonably necessary steps in the proceedings. As Harrison DCJ pointed out, there are quite a number of steps that are to be required and while in the end they might be considered reasonably straightforward, they will take some time.
The reference to the Court of Appeal decision, was Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, where the Court said: The use of the words “reasonable costs” does not compel the conclusion that the solicitor/client costs cannot be recovered. Rather, it compels the conclusion that it is only reasonable solicitor/client costs, objectively assessed, that can be recovered. [emphasis added].
The question then, is whether, the costs claimed against JD Zhang NZ Limited were reasonable when objectively assessed, and I find they were.
Starting with the hourly rates charged, there is nothing that seems unusual to me. The amounts charged by the Manager are unsurprising given the work they did, and the hourly rate charged by PBB is within the range that would commonly be seen in law firms in New Zealand – it is not exceptional.
PBB has provided its time records, and in my assessment, the steps that were taken in this case would not seem out of place with what would normally occur in a levy recovery case.
The real issue for the Unit Owner is around the fact that Ms Yang was out of New Zealand when the invoices were raised. I accept that is the case, but that is not a defence to not paying the levies when they are invoiced. It is very likely Ms Yang would have known that she needed to pay levies to the Body Corporate, I presume she has paid those previously. Ms Yang may have been out of New Zealand, but she could have had someone look after the premises and to pay the bills while she was out of New Zealand.
Similarly, age and inability with English are not a defence to the claim. If Ms Yang was not able to manage her affairs, she should have appointed a representative to manage them on her behalf. The requirement to pay levies is strict, there is no flexibility in the UTA around that.
The Unit Owner has referred to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as providing an expectation or ability to exercise a discretion. Section 85 is a provision that relates to the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal, or more particularly, how the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. It does not provide any obligation on a body corporate. There are normally no issues arising as far as the Tribunal’s expectation to apply the general law, but issues can arise as to the extent the Tribunal should depart from the general law to follow substantive merits and justice. In Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald HC AK CIV 2008-404-0038, the High Court needed to consider the extent of the substantive merits and justice requirement in section 85(2). The Court confirmed that the starting point must be the general legal obligations, and that merits and justice need to be assessed in light of those general law obligations.
However, I do not consider that I have any ability to provide a discretion under section 85, because the law in relation to a body corporate being able to recover its reasonable collection costs is strict, and it is clear.
I will now consider the six points raised in the unit owners’ written submissions. a. The Unit Owner has acted in good faith, paying the levies and interest when they became aware that those were outstanding. i. That might well be the case, but the problem for the unit owner is that the Manager and PBB had already incurred costs before the levies were paid, and certainly, the interest charge was paid well after PBB became involved. The only way that the unit owner could have limited the collection costs charged would have been to have paid those costs at the first opportunity, and in full. ii. Because the full collection costs were not paid at the first opportunity, then further costs ramped up over time, which was a natural endpoint from PBB undertaking further work to recover the prior collection costs. b. The Body Corporate failed to update the contact details when contacted by Mr Zhang. i. I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to show that the contact details should have been updated. Mr Zhang is not the unit owner, and he has no legal relationship with the Body Corporate. Strictly, it is only the unit owner who could have updated the contact or representative details. c. The Body Corporate was too hasty with escalating the matter to the Tribunal, and should have engaged with the Unit Owner first. i. I am not persuaded that either the Manager or PBB were hasty in any steps to recover the levy, including the referral to the Tenancy Tribunal. A plain reading of the file shows that a range of warning notices were sent, and it was only when those notices were not complied with, that the matter was escalated. That is what I would expect to see, the path taken in this case is fairly ordinary. d. The legal costs claimed are disproportionate and excessive. i. I have addressed this above, in my assessment, the costs when objectively assessed, are reasonable. e. The Unit Owner is vulnerable as a retired elderly person who does not speak English, and is up against a professionally managed Body Corporate with specialist lawyers. i. I have also addressed this matter above. While I accept that vulnerabilities would arise with Ms Yang, that does not present a defence to not paying levies or collection costs. The unit owner could have instructed another person to act on her behalf while she was overseas, or in relation to this proceeding. I am also minded that Ms Prowse adjourned this hearing to allow the Unit Owner to obtain legal advice, and therefore limit any discrepancy in skill. f. When the invoices came to the notice of the Unit Owner (via Mr Zhang) the levies were paid. i. It is true that the levy was paid by Mr Zhang, but it was still paid late, and the payment was short inasmuch as the interest was not paid, nor were the collection costs to that date.
I am satisfied that the costs as claimed above have been established, and they are ordered in full, but with the exception of the interest charge. The Unit Owner is liable for the charges from the Manager, PBB and the filing fee with the Tribunal. The interest charge was paid after the submissions were produced, so I make no award of that amount.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064284 — Unit Titles in Hobsonville, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064284 — Unit Titles in Hobsonville, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

BODY CORPORATES CLAIMS

UNIT OWNERS CLAIMS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

BODY CORPORATES CLAIMS

UNIT OWNERS CLAIMS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.