Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9070484 — Leaks in Mount Eden, Auckland
Published 30 January 2026 · Application 9070484
Landlord favoured
- Leaks
Order
- Amy Johanna Newkirk must pay Body Corporate 154558 $9,649.23 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicant Operational levies$6,994.66 Contingency levy$1,982.07 Plumbing on-charge$172.50 Filing Fee$500.00 Total award$9,649.23 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $9,649.23
Reasons
- This is an application by Body Corporate 154558 to recover unpaid levies and related charges from Ms Newkirk, owner of Unit 9B at 66 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland.
- The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mr Gladwin, as chairperson, appeared for the applicant. Ms Newkirk, the unit title owner, did not appear.
- I attempted to contact Ms Newkirk on two occasions using the mobile number ending 4033 on file. On each occasion, a voicemail message was left advising that, if she could not be reached, the hearing would proceed in her absence. As Ms Newkirk did not join the hearing, I proceeded accordingly.
- The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
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 Act”).
- 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 as at the hearing date: a. The outstanding operational levy balance was $7,167.16, which included a plumbing on-charge of $172.50; and b. The outstanding contingency levy balance was $1,982.07.
- Ms Newkirk’s written submissions focus on accounting explanations and invoice descriptions. These matters do not affect her statutory obligation to pay levies that have been properly resolved. Disagreement with accounting presentation is not a basis to withhold payment of levies.
- Pursuant to s 80(1)(f) of the Act, Ms Newkirk is obliged to pay the outstanding operational and contingency levies. I find that those levies are properly payable. Plumbing on-charge
- The plumbing invoice relates to the investigation of a water leak affecting another unit.
- The plumber attended the site, inspected Unit 9B, and spoke directly with Ms Newkirk, who explained the circumstances giving rise to the leak. The evidence establishes that the water originated from within Unit 9B and was not caused by common property.
- I am satisfied that Ms Newkirk is responsible for keeping her unit in good order to ensure that no damage occurs to another unit. Section 81(1)(g) is therefore met, and the body corporate is entitled to recover the plumbing costs.
- The on-charge of $172.50 is properly payable by Ms Newkirk.
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.
- The application also seeks recovery of additional costs totalling $5,438.14. The nature of these costs was not clearly identified in the original application, and no detailed breakdown was provided. It is unclear whether these costs relate to interest or time spent on the claims.
- As Mr Gladwin did not address this issue during the hearing, I directed the Registry to contact him to clarify the claim. As at 5 pm, no response had been received, and I have therefore put this aspect of the claim aside.
- Ms Newkirk’s written submissions addressed only the levies and did not respond to any claim for additional costs, possibly due to the absence of a detailed breakdown.
- In the absence of a clear breakdown of the additional costs and an opportunity for Ms Newkirk to respond, I am not satisfied that this aspect of the claim should be determined in this proceeding.
- The claim for additional costs is therefore dismissed without prejudice. The body corporate may pursue those costs by way of a new application if it chooses. Filing fee
- 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.