Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9067624 — Unit Titles in Point England, Auckland
Decided 19 Jun 2026 · Published 19 Jun 2026 · Application 9067624
- Unit Titles
Order
- [The party] must pay Body Corporate 571762 $8,328.89 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Costs – levy collection $7,483.89 Filing Fee $500.00 Costs: attendance at hearing $345.00 Total award $8,328.89 Total payable by Applicant to Respondent $8,328.89
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Respondent is a joint (50/50) registered owner of Principal Unit 7B on Deposited Plan 571762. The unit is a stratum estate in freehold.
- Jessica Thompson is his partner and the other joint owner of the unit.
- Initially the application was made against both owners, but it was amended and is now lodged on the basis that Mr Daniels only is liable to pay the requested costs.
- Both Mr Daniels and Ms Thompson attended the hearing.
- They have been levied contributions under section 121 of the Act.
- The levies are recoverable pursuant to section 124 of the Act.
- In Augst 2024 Mr Daniels was unfortunately diagnosed with a life-threatening illness and was unable to work while he underwent treatment. Ms Thompson is his partner and was his care giver while he was unwell.
- In August 2024 Mr Daniels wrote to the BC advising of his illness and asking if he could have additional time to pay his levies as his income had dropped significantly. He anticipated benefit/disability allowance financial assistance and was applying for a lump sum payment.
- The BC was understandably sympathetic and agreed to the request and asked Mr Daniels to pay what he could and ensure the balance outstanding was paid by 31/3/2025. He was asked to outline his plans for repayment of the balance of the levies outstanding.
- Mr Daniels paid $1,000 towards the levy debt shortly afterwards. He did not outline a payment plan for the remainder of the outstanding levies.
- On 15 November 2025 the BC wrote to Mr Daniels again, noting it had not received any further payments toward the outstanding levies and again requesting Mr Daniels send through details of his proposed repayment plan i.e confirming how he proposed to repay the arrears that remained outstanding.
- On 29 January 2025 when the BC had not received a response to the November request for a payment plan or repayment of any further amount towards the debt it advised Mr Daniels that the debt would be handed for collection on 19/2/2025 (in accordance with the “debt collection and penalty interest” provisions set out in the minutes of the BC AGM) if Mr Daniels did not either pay the outstanding amount or advise of his plans to do so.
- When it heard nothing further, in late February 2025, the BC handed the debt to the applicant for collection purposes, as it had advised it would do.
- The applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal on 7 July 2025 seeking recovery of the costs.
- The Tribunal application form notes that the levies and other required costs had been paid in full (by then) and the applicant was seeking recovery of s124 costs of $3,236.10 plus the filing fee of $500.
- The hearing was set in September and adjourned at the request of Mr Daniels.
- Mr Daniels asked the applicant to withdraw the proceedings noting that the levies and other costs had been paid and explaining why he did not consider he should have to pay the costs.
- The applicant explained in submissions why it considered the costs were recoverable and it would not withdraw the application.
- The hearing was adjourned to accommodate Mr Daniels’ request for an afternoon hearing.
- Progressing these matters have added significantly to the costs now sought (as outlined in the breakdown of costs sought).
- The only outstanding issue therefore for the Tribunal to resolve is whether the costs requested must be paid (in full or in part) by Mr Daniels.
- The applicant seeks recovery of the costs actually incurred in collecting the outstanding levies and associated costs.
- The adjournment and additional legal costs incurred have resulted in an increase in the costs requested which are now $7,348.49
- Mr Daniels submits that he should not be liable to pay any of the costs as the applicant had agreed to his request for an extension of time to pay the levies, until 31/3/2025 which he did, and it was not therefore fair or reasonable for the BC to incur the debt recovery costs.
- Mr Daniels says he intended to pay the outstanding levy by 31/3/2025 and when he was unable to get an advance from WINZ, he made arrangements to do that (by increasing his mortgage facility).
- There is no dispute between the parties about the quantum of the levies or the amount of interest charged. Those amounts have been paid. There is also no real dispute that the costs claimed are not reasonable in terms of the time spent (as per the detailed break down provided). It is whether it was reasonable of the BC to refer the outstanding levies, for debt collection in February 2025, that is the nub of the issue.
- The documentation/evidence provided confirms that the levies were correctly struck, invoices requiring payment were issued promptly and the Minutes of the relevant AGM’s permitted the applicant to refer outstanding levies for debt collection and seek recovery of associated costs.
- Section 124 costs have therefore been incurred because of the Respondent’s failure to pay the overdue amounts.
Is the Unit owner liable for costs?
- 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.
- The District Court in Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu endorsed the recovery of solicitor/client costs under section 124.
- Judge Harrison in Body Corporate 331094 v Smith held that legal fees incurred in pursuing payment of costs incurred in recovering outstanding levies were recoverable under s 127 of the Act.
- It was also noted in that decision that costs might equally be sought pursuant to s 124, on the basis that the costs of recovering the overstanding levy is itself part of the debt, and all that the Body Corporate is doing is pursuing payment of the balance of the debt,
- I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
- I am not satisfied that the BC is somehow estopped from seeking recovery of costs because the BC is unfairly in breach of a repayment plan it had agreed with Mr Daniels and therefore it would not be fair or just to order the costs claimed.
- In making that finding I accept the BC’s submission that while it had agreed to allow Mr Daniels additional time to pay the levy (until 31/3/2025), that agreement was never open-ended. It was always conditional both on the respondent paying the $1,000 he had agreed to pay at the outset AND also providing details of the payment plan he proposed. That was what was specifically requested of Mr Daniels in the BC communications of 6 August and then the request was repeated in November 2024 and January 2025.
- The BC communications clearly requested Mr Daniels provide specific details of the payment plan he proposed (the level and frequency of repayments and the start date). The reality is he had made no further payments since August 2024, when the last request was sent in January 2025 by the BC. At that time, he had still not paid anything or communicated with the BC as requested and outlined his plan to make those payments by February 2025.
- It was only when no response (i.e no payment plan) was provided to the BC, that the referral for debt recovery was made in late February 2025.
- While I accept entirely that Mr Daniels had made his own plan by then, he did not communicate that to the BC. The BC therefore had no way of knowing that he was able to or about to settle in full. He had not paid anything and not communicated with them for 6 months. While that was clearly because he was extremely unwell, the genuineness of the reasons for the delay, does not explain the lack of communication.
- Section 124 confirms that those who default in the payment of levies are responsible for the costs associated with recovery.
- The alternative here would be to impose some or all of those reasonably incurred costs on the other unit owners who have been meeting their own responsibilities.
- The respondents paid the initial $1,000 but did not either make any further payments or provide the requested payment plan proposal. It was that default that triggered the referral for collection and the incurring of the costs for which recovery is requested.
- I have also considered the respondent’s submission that the BC incorrectly used his work email address when again requesting he provide the repayment plan proposal in November 2024 and January 2025.
- The applicant points out that it is incumbent on a unit owner to notify the BC if their contact details/address for service changes. That requirement is set out in section 85 which requires a unit owner to formally notify the BC in writing, of their changed contact details. The respondent did not provide the amended email address until March 2025. The BC was therefore entitled and in fact required by the legislation, to use the contact emails they had.
- While I might agree with Mr Daniels that it would have been good practice to also knock on his door (or slip a paper copy of the request under the door) and copy the email to the private email address he had been using, these are not statutory requirements.
- Simply put, despite my genuine sympathy for Mr Daniels, I am unable to agree with him that it is the unit owners collectively (as opposed to him personally) that ought to pay the reasonable costs that are requested.
- Because the BC has succeeded with the claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.