What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9068584 about?

The tribunal order states: Yahong Limited must pay Body Corporate 366567 $10,694.01 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9068584?

Costs: BC Collection Costs: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Costs: Legal Costs Including Hearing: $3,303.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: Up: $235.38 awarded to landlord; Levy: $6,252.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9068584?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9068584?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397187-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9068584 about?

The tribunal order states: Yahong Limited must pay Body Corporate 366567 $10,694.01 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9068584?

Costs: BC Collection Costs: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Costs: Legal Costs Including Hearing: $3,303.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Interest: Up: $235.38 awarded to landlord; Levy: $6,252.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9068584?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9068584?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397187-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9068584 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9068584 — net $10,694.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Levy	$6,252.88	Levy
Costs: BC Collection costs	$402.50	Costs: BC Collection costs
Costs: Legal costs including hearing	$3,303.25	Costs: Legal costs including hearing
Interest: up to 10 September 2025	$235.38	Interest: up to 10 September 2025
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$10,694.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,694.01

Order

Yahong Limited must pay Body Corporate 366567 $10,694.01 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levy$6,252.88 Costs: BC Collection costs$402.50 Costs: Legal costs including hearing$3,303.25 Interest: up to 10 September 2025$235.38 Filing Fee$500.00 Total award$10,694.01 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $10,694.01

Reasons

This matter was held by video on the 10 September 2025.
I have taken some time to determine this matter as I was considering the law regarding the application of a payment towards a debt owed.
Ms Donovan from Price Baker Berridge attended for the Body Corporate. The Respondent did not attend by video but was called on the phone number provided. That call was not answered. A landline number for the Respondent was also called, that was for a law firm. The law firm had no knowledge of the hearing or instructions to act for the Respondent in this matter.
The Respondent has been given notice of the hearing and I have proceeded in their absence.
The Body Corporate is seeking unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The Respondent did not pay the unpaid levy instalment of $3178.76 due on the 31 January 2025. The Body Corporate had to instigate debt collection procedures to recover the debt. The Respondent did not pay the debt.
The Body Corporate instructed their lawyers Price Baker Berridge (PBB) to collect the levies owed. PBB sent a letter of demand to the respondent requiring them to make payment of the levies owed, interest, and the body corporate and legal fees incurred to date, by the 28 April 2025.
The Respondent made a payment of $550 on the 5 May 2025, and another payment of $3612.31 on the 15 May. The Body Corporate credited the $550 paid on the 5 May to the first instalment levy, and the total of the amount paid on the 15 May to the second instalment levy, which at that stage had been struck and was due on the 30 May. The Body Corporate did that as the amount paid matched exactly the amount in the second invoice (levy instalment) which was different to the amount outstanding (even if you totalled the debt collection costs) to the first instalment levy.
At the hearing I was concerned that the Body Corporate had not applied the payments made by the unit owner to the oldest debt first. I adjourned the hearing to allow the Body Corporate to consider this issue. When the hearing reconvened Mr Baker attended for PBB.
Mr Baker made the following submissions: a. That the rule in Clayton does not apply because the Body Corporate owner’s account is not a current account, because it is made up of distinct debts. b. That the unit owner did not make any directions when making the payments as to which debts they should be allocated to. c. That the payment of the debt of $3612.31 was rendered shortly after the second instalment levy had been invoiced and that the amount paid matched the second levied amount, and therefore it is reasonably inferred that the debtor intended payment for the second levy.
When a debtor makes payment, then the requirements of the creditor when appropriating that payment can be summarised as follows: a. If the debtor makes it clear in a reference that the money is to pay of a particular debt, then the creditor must apply the payment to the debt. b. If the debtor implies (by the amount paid, or the date paid) that the money is to be used for a payment towards a particular debt, then the creditor must apply to that debt. c. If the debtor has a current account, then the credit must pay the oldest debt first. d. If none of the above apply, then the creditor is free to apply the payment to any debt that it wishes provided that it cannot attribute to a debt that is not yet struck or due.
Having considered the above legal principles and rules, then I consider the Body Corporate was entitled to apply the payments against the debts in the manner that they have.

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 amount claimed.
The Respondent has not paid all of the levies owed, and at the date that the Body Corporate filed this claim still owed $2640.57 in unpaid levies. Since filing another instalment of the levy has become due 10 July 2025 and that amount too remains unpaid and owing.

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 proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

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. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable as they are for the type of work and time that I would expect to see for a lawyer undertaking this type of work.
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 9068584 — net $10,694.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Levy	$6,252.88	Levy
Costs: BC Collection costs	$402.50	Costs: BC Collection costs
Costs: Legal costs including hearing	$3,303.25	Costs: Legal costs including hearing
Interest: up to 10 September 2025	$235.38	Interest: up to 10 September 2025
Filing Fee	$500.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$10,694.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,694.01

Order

Yahong Limited must pay Body Corporate 366567 $10,694.01 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levy$6,252.88 Costs: BC Collection costs$402.50 Costs: Legal costs including hearing$3,303.25 Interest: up to 10 September 2025$235.38 Filing Fee$500.00 Total award$10,694.01 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $10,694.01

Reasons

This matter was held by video on the 10 September 2025.
I have taken some time to determine this matter as I was considering the law regarding the application of a payment towards a debt owed.
Ms Donovan from Price Baker Berridge attended for the Body Corporate. The Respondent did not attend by video but was called on the phone number provided. That call was not answered. A landline number for the Respondent was also called, that was for a law firm. The law firm had no knowledge of the hearing or instructions to act for the Respondent in this matter.
The Respondent has been given notice of the hearing and I have proceeded in their absence.
The Body Corporate is seeking unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The Respondent did not pay the unpaid levy instalment of $3178.76 due on the 31 January 2025. The Body Corporate had to instigate debt collection procedures to recover the debt. The Respondent did not pay the debt.
The Body Corporate instructed their lawyers Price Baker Berridge (PBB) to collect the levies owed. PBB sent a letter of demand to the respondent requiring them to make payment of the levies owed, interest, and the body corporate and legal fees incurred to date, by the 28 April 2025.
The Respondent made a payment of $550 on the 5 May 2025, and another payment of $3612.31 on the 15 May. The Body Corporate credited the $550 paid on the 5 May to the first instalment levy, and the total of the amount paid on the 15 May to the second instalment levy, which at that stage had been struck and was due on the 30 May. The Body Corporate did that as the amount paid matched exactly the amount in the second invoice (levy instalment) which was different to the amount outstanding (even if you totalled the debt collection costs) to the first instalment levy.
At the hearing I was concerned that the Body Corporate had not applied the payments made by the unit owner to the oldest debt first. I adjourned the hearing to allow the Body Corporate to consider this issue. When the hearing reconvened Mr Baker attended for PBB.
Mr Baker made the following submissions: a. That the rule in Clayton does not apply because the Body Corporate owner’s account is not a current account, because it is made up of distinct debts. b. That the unit owner did not make any directions when making the payments as to which debts they should be allocated to. c. That the payment of the debt of $3612.31 was rendered shortly after the second instalment levy had been invoiced and that the amount paid matched the second levied amount, and therefore it is reasonably inferred that the debtor intended payment for the second levy.
When a debtor makes payment, then the requirements of the creditor when appropriating that payment can be summarised as follows: a. If the debtor makes it clear in a reference that the money is to pay of a particular debt, then the creditor must apply the payment to the debt. b. If the debtor implies (by the amount paid, or the date paid) that the money is to be used for a payment towards a particular debt, then the creditor must apply to that debt. c. If the debtor has a current account, then the credit must pay the oldest debt first. d. If none of the above apply, then the creditor is free to apply the payment to any debt that it wishes provided that it cannot attribute to a debt that is not yet struck or due.
Having considered the above legal principles and rules, then I consider the Body Corporate was entitled to apply the payments against the debts in the manner that they have.

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 amount claimed.
The Respondent has not paid all of the levies owed, and at the date that the Body Corporate filed this claim still owed $2640.57 in unpaid levies. Since filing another instalment of the levy has become due 10 July 2025 and that amount too remains unpaid and owing.

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 proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

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. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable as they are for the type of work and time that I would expect to see for a lawyer undertaking this type of work.
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 9068584 — Tenancy dispute in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9068584 — Tenancy dispute in Auckland Central, 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions