What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065304 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9065304?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065304?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150688-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9065304 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9065304?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065304?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150688-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9065304 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Girio attended the hearing for himself.
Donnamarie Postlewaight and Sue Rubanand attended for the Crockers, the body corporate manager.
Mr Girio has applied for compensation for problems with his hot water cylinder. Background
Mr Girio owns a unit in the development, which was completed in 2022.
On 3 May 2024, a plumbing company, Chenery Plumbing carried out some entire- installation remedial work to the development’s HWCs, including Mr Girio’s hot water cylinder (HWC).
A few days after Chenery’s work on the HWC, Mr Girio noticed (and videoed) multiple issues with the HWC, including: •Persistent overflows from the HWC. •The HWC heating water to an excessively hot temperature. •Boiling water and steam coming out of the toilet drain vent. •A disturbing noise emanating from the HWC at night when it was not in use.
Chenery returned to the unit on 9 and 10 May 2024, but the problems persisted.
On 15 July 2024, Chenery’s plumber attended on a fourth occasion. That visit dealt with some of the problems, but the thermostat was left set too high and the HWC suffered from a persistent leak that is still dripping.
Ms Postlewaight was drawn into the remedial works after the building manager indicated it would charge the body corporate for the extra work involved in providing access to the units. She reluctantly stepped in to coordinate Chenery’s access to carry out the works. Later, when Mr Girio’s problems emerged she liaised between him and Chenery to try and get the problems addressed. Discussion
The directs source of Mr Girio’s unit’s hot water issues are either the HWC unit failing or from faulty work by Chenery. Ms Postlewaight got involved by helping facilitating access to the units of unit holders who wanted the work done and then helping Mr Girio communicate with Chenery. Mr Girio considers that Crockers became liable for the problems because of their support role. However, I am not aware that an legal principle applies to make Crockers responsible, nor would it be fair to consider them liable in the circumstances.
Crockers was not responsible for the possible faulty manufacture or faulty repair work. Crockers acted as the body corporate’s agent in assisting Chenery to carry out remedial work that the developer had indicated ought to be done then assisted Mr Girio even though it had no duty to.
The body corporate committee did not formally authorise Chenery’s remedial work by way of a resolution. However, it was obvious that unit owners should have the opportunity to benefit from the apparently important HWC work being done if they wished to. That outcome was likely a “no-brainer” decision for the body corporate, which barely needed consideration.
There is a more fundamental barrier to these proceedings also. The rule against derivative claims generally prevents individual unit owners from bringing proceedings against body corporate managers. In Singh v Boutique Body Corporates Limited 1 the High Court found that contractors such as body corporate managers are generally liable only to the body corporate not individual unit owners. Judge R M Bell commented in that case: 2 [26] These approaches apply where a professional provides services to a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act. In general, the professional assumes a duty of care only to the body corporate, not to individual owners. That means that the body corporate can hold the professional to account. Any decision to do so will be made by the body corporate in a general meeting or by those acting with delegated authority of the body corporate. The rule against derivative claims applies to bodies corporate under the Unit Titles Act as well other incorporated entities. 1 [2019] NZHC 1707, 2 At [26]
Mr Girio may feasibly have a claim against Chenery or the HWC manufacturer. If so, the appropriate forum is probably the Disputes Tribunal, not the Tribunal because it only has jurisdiction to hear cases involving parties not listed in s 171(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, and ordinary contractors are not a listed party.
If Mr Girio can provide evidence to Chenery or the HWC manufacturer that either or both of them are liable for the HWC issues, the Tribunal would hope that they would agree to reimburse him for his losses such as the increased costs for power and water that he has had to pay. If not, Mr Girio may wish to make a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. Conclusion
The claim against Crockers must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Girio attended the hearing for himself.
Donnamarie Postlewaight and Sue Rubanand attended for the Crockers, the body corporate manager.
Mr Girio has applied for compensation for problems with his hot water cylinder. Background
Mr Girio owns a unit in the development, which was completed in 2022.
On 3 May 2024, a plumbing company, Chenery Plumbing carried out some entire- installation remedial work to the development’s HWCs, including Mr Girio’s hot water cylinder (HWC).
A few days after Chenery’s work on the HWC, Mr Girio noticed (and videoed) multiple issues with the HWC, including: •Persistent overflows from the HWC. •The HWC heating water to an excessively hot temperature. •Boiling water and steam coming out of the toilet drain vent. •A disturbing noise emanating from the HWC at night when it was not in use.
Chenery returned to the unit on 9 and 10 May 2024, but the problems persisted.
On 15 July 2024, Chenery’s plumber attended on a fourth occasion. That visit dealt with some of the problems, but the thermostat was left set too high and the HWC suffered from a persistent leak that is still dripping.
Ms Postlewaight was drawn into the remedial works after the building manager indicated it would charge the body corporate for the extra work involved in providing access to the units. She reluctantly stepped in to coordinate Chenery’s access to carry out the works. Later, when Mr Girio’s problems emerged she liaised between him and Chenery to try and get the problems addressed. Discussion
The directs source of Mr Girio’s unit’s hot water issues are either the HWC unit failing or from faulty work by Chenery. Ms Postlewaight got involved by helping facilitating access to the units of unit holders who wanted the work done and then helping Mr Girio communicate with Chenery. Mr Girio considers that Crockers became liable for the problems because of their support role. However, I am not aware that an legal principle applies to make Crockers responsible, nor would it be fair to consider them liable in the circumstances.
Crockers was not responsible for the possible faulty manufacture or faulty repair work. Crockers acted as the body corporate’s agent in assisting Chenery to carry out remedial work that the developer had indicated ought to be done then assisted Mr Girio even though it had no duty to.
The body corporate committee did not formally authorise Chenery’s remedial work by way of a resolution. However, it was obvious that unit owners should have the opportunity to benefit from the apparently important HWC work being done if they wished to. That outcome was likely a “no-brainer” decision for the body corporate, which barely needed consideration.
There is a more fundamental barrier to these proceedings also. The rule against derivative claims generally prevents individual unit owners from bringing proceedings against body corporate managers. In Singh v Boutique Body Corporates Limited 1 the High Court found that contractors such as body corporate managers are generally liable only to the body corporate not individual unit owners. Judge R M Bell commented in that case: 2 [26] These approaches apply where a professional provides services to a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act. In general, the professional assumes a duty of care only to the body corporate, not to individual owners. That means that the body corporate can hold the professional to account. Any decision to do so will be made by the body corporate in a general meeting or by those acting with delegated authority of the body corporate. The rule against derivative claims applies to bodies corporate under the Unit Titles Act as well other incorporated entities. 1 [2019] NZHC 1707, 2 At [26]
Mr Girio may feasibly have a claim against Chenery or the HWC manufacturer. If so, the appropriate forum is probably the Disputes Tribunal, not the Tribunal because it only has jurisdiction to hear cases involving parties not listed in s 171(2) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, and ordinary contractors are not a listed party.
If Mr Girio can provide evidence to Chenery or the HWC manufacturer that either or both of them are liable for the HWC issues, the Tribunal would hope that they would agree to reimburse him for his losses such as the increased costs for power and water that he has had to pay. If not, Mr Girio may wish to make a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. Conclusion
The claim against Crockers must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065304 — Leaks in Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065304 — Leaks in Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions