How much money was awarded in case 9071124?

Body Corporate And: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9071124?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9071124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13589667-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9071124?

Body Corporate And: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9071124?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9071124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13589667-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9071124 — Leaks

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9071124 about?

The tribunal order states: Body Corporate 558944 must pay Annette Louise Frances Sleep and Stanley White

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9071124. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Body Corporate and	$500.00		Body Corporate and

Body Corporate 558944 must pay Annette Louise Frances Sleep and Stanley White $3,000.00 immediately, being the insurance excess of $2,500.00 charged by the Body Corporate and $500.00 Tribunal filing fee.

The issue of costs to be determined on the papers, following filing of memorandum by the parties.

Reasons

Both parties’ counsel attended the hearing on 19 March 2025. Clinton Baker represented the unit owners whereas Paul Kim represented the body corporate.

The applicant, owners of unit 116, have applied for return of plumbing expenses and insurance excess paid to the body corporate.

The plumbing expenses consist of two invoices totalling $906.81 plus admin charges of $57.50 on-charged by the body corporate for investigations and repairs undertaken on a leaky section of unit 116’s hot water cylinder drainage pipe.

Insurance excess of $2,500.00 was paid by the body corporate to remediate the damage that was caused to neighbouring units from the leak prior to the repairs being successfully undertaken.

The body corporate’s building manager first investigated a leak from unit 116 in early November 2024. An invoice for $500 was issued for the attendance plus an admin charge of $28.75.

A plumber then investigated the same leak and found the cause to be a small section of the drainage pipe for the hot water cylinder inside the bathroom of unit 116 which had melted because of the hot water cylinder overheating. An invoice for $406.81 was issued for those investigations and repairs. The body corporate added another admin charge of $28.75 to this invoice.

By then, the leak had damaged the ceiling cavity of unit 14G (situated below unit 116) and the wall shared with unit 117 (situated next to unit 116) requiring remedial works. The cost of these repairs to units 14G and 117 were covered by the body corporate’s building insurer. The applicable insurance excess of $2,500 was paid by the body corporate.

On 16 December 2024, the body corporate’s manager wrote to the owners of unit 116 explaining the basis for the on-charges of plumbing expenses plus admin charges and insurance excess.

On 26 June 2025, the unit owners paid the two plumbing invoices that were issued to the body corporate and the associated admin charges. The unit owners also paid the body corporate’s invoice/levy for the insurance excess. The unit owners paid those plumbing invoices and insurance excess (on a without prejudice basis) to preserve voting rights pursuant to section 96(6) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).

The unit owners seek declaratory orders and reimbursement of the plumbing expenses and insurance excess from the body corporate.

Are the unit owners responsible for the plumbing costs incurred?

Counsel for the unit owners submits that no person or contractor could locate the source of the leak despite best efforts until the final repairs on 2 December 2024.

Counsel for the unit owners submits that under the UTA, pipes are classified as infrastructure that goes “to or from a unit or to or from the common property”; pipes are an infrastructure system throughout the whole of the building serving the building as a whole. Accordingly, counsel submits that they must be maintained by the body corporate.

Counsel for the unit owners also submits that payment of the repair costs under section 126 UTA does not apply.

Section 126 UTA provides that where work undertaken by a body corporate substantially benefits only one unit more than others, the body corporate may recover the cost of those works from the benefiting unit(s).

Specifically, section 126 only allows for the recovery of costs of the repair if the "work, or act benefits any unit by a distinct and ascertainable amount”.

Counsel for the unit owners says that the repair of the subject infrastructure does not substantially benefit unit 116 more than any other unit, and nor did it solely serve unit 116. It provided safe passage for the contents of the pipe from unit 116 to other parts of the complex and the building infrastructure, designed to carry that content safely, without leaks, to protect units and common property below and around them.

Additionally, to utilise section 126 required a body corporate assessment and resolution, neither of which have been provided or apparently exist.

I find however that unit 116 owners are responsible for maintaining their drainage pipe pursuant to section 80(1)(g) UTA and pursuant to section 138(4) UTA, costs incurred by the body corporate that relate to repairs of infrastructure contained in their principal unit are recoverable by the body corporate.

Section 80(1)(g) UTA provides that an owner of a principal unit must: “... repair and maintain the unit and keep it in good order to ensure that no damage or harm, whether physical, economic, or otherwise, is, or has the potential to be, caused to the common property, any building element, any infrastructure, or any other unit in the building”.

Section 138(4) UTA provides: “Any costs incurred by the body corporate that relate to repairs to or maintenance of building elements and infrastructure contained in a principal unit are recoverable by the body corporate from the owner of that unit as a debt due to the body corporate (less any amount already paid) by the person who was the unit owner at the time the expense was incurred....”

I consider that the material provisions of sections 80(1)(g) and 138(4) oblige the unit owners to repair and maintain the unit, which includes infrastructure contained in unit 116, in good order and where the body corporate has carried out repairs, pursuant to section 138(1) and (3) UTA, on that piece of infrastructure, the expenses incurred are then payable by the unit owners to the body corporate as a statutory debt.

The facts establish that leak initially emanated from the melted drainage pipe for the unit owner’s overheated hot water cylinder. After repairs to the hot water cylinder and pipe, another leak was discovered coming from the trap under the sink. The 3 December 2024 invoice from Waterworks states that on 2 December, their plumber investigated a leak under the sink and discovered water coming out of one of the nuts on the trap due to it not being properly done. The plumber then undone the nut and re-tightened it and tested it, and confirmed that there was no more leak.

After the unit owners’ plumber’s visit on 2 December 2024, there were no reports or complaints of further leaks emanating from unit 116.

As the leaks were from a drainpipe from the hot water cylinder in the unit and the trap under the sink in the unit, the responsibility for their repair falls on the unit owner and because the body corporate incurred expenses for the repairs, they could recover the cost of repairs pursuant to s138(4) UTA.

In my view, the question of whether the pipe is part of infrastructure serving other units or not is not determinative of the issue. Even if the pipe did not serve more than one unit, the body corporate is entitled to repair it if there was potential for damage to the building elements or infrastructure, common property or other units.

I find that the pipe and under sink repair works were substantially for the benefit of unit 116 only, even though the leak affected other units.

Logically, I cannot see how the unit owners can be obligated by s80(1)(g) to maintain their unit and ensure no damage is caused to other units, and then say they are not liable for the cost of fixing a leak in their unit which does damage other units.

I therefore reject counsel’s submission that the issue hinges on whether the repairs of the subject infrastructure substantially benefits unit 116 more than any other unit, nor does it matter that the infrastructure solely serve unit 116 in that it provided safe passage for the contents of the pipe from unit 116 to other parts of the complex and the building infrastructure.

I consider that the consequence of that argument would result in an inequitable situation in which expenses incurred for maintenance of a unit owner’s infrastructure must be shared by all other unit owners of the complex even though the repairs were specifically directed to the unit owner’s infrastructure alone.

Given my above finding that the body corporate was entitled to recover for plumbing costs from the unit owners under section 138(4) UTA, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the body corporate have made an assessment of liability under section 126 UTA before on-charging the expenses to the unit owners.

For those reasons, I dismiss the unit owners’ claim for reimbursement of plumbing expenses paid to the body corporate.

I now address the unit owner’s claim for reimbursement of the body corporate’s invoice for the insurance excess. Have the unit owners or their tenants acted in a wilful or negligent manner to cause the leak or the damage to units 14G and 117?

There is no dispute that the leaks from unit 116 caused water damage to unit G14 (immediately below unit 116) and unit 117 (next to unit 116). The cost of remedial works to the units were covered by the body corporate’s insurer, less the insurance excess of $2,500.

The body corporate levied unit 116 owners the insurance excess, which was paid under protest by the unit owners.

The basis for the body corporate’s levy is unclear.

Counsel for the unit owners presumed that the basis of the levy was pursuant to section 127 UTA.

Section 127 allows the body corporate to recover any expense of any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act if it was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee.

Neither the owners of unit 116 nor their tenants acted in a wilful or negligent manner to cause the leak nor the damage to the adjoining units. This position is not contradicted by the body corporate or their counsel. Despite the best efforts of contractors and other specialists engaged, the source of the leak was not established for some time. After it was finally established, it was fixed.

For those reasons, I find that the body corporate could not levy the unit owners pursuant to section 127 UTA as there was no wilful act or omission or negligence on part of the unit owners or their tenants.

Counsel for the body corporate however submits that the unit owners’ obligation to pay the insurance excess arises under sections 80(1)(g) and 126, rather than section 127.

Section 126 provides that where work undertaken by a body corporate substantially benefits only one unit more than others, the body corporate may recover the cost of those works from the benefiting unit(s).

However, I cannot see how the remedial works to units G14 and 117 benefited unit 116 for section 126 to apply. If the body corporate had levied units G14 and 117 the insurance excess, section 126 UTA might potentially be relevant, but for other reasons which is not necessary for me to consider, would not be claimable against those victims of the leak.

In respect of section 80(1)(g), I consider that like section 127 UTA, some aspect of fault or wilful act or omission or negligence on part of the unit owners or their tenants are required before the unit owners will be liable to pay the insurance excess for the repairs to the adjoining units.

I accept submission from counsel of the unit owners that the obligation on the unit owner to ensure that no damage is caused to common property or other units is not absolute.

In Brooker v Body Corporate 154558 (2005) 6 NZCPR 953 at [63] – [70], it was determined that a body corporate’s obligation to repair and maintain common property is reasonable, not absolute. The same interpretation must apply to a unit owner’s obligation under section 80(1)(g). Such an interpretation accords and is consistent with the words of section 127 which provide the remedy for a body corporate in the event of a breach in the form of fault or wilful act or omission or negligence on part of the unit owners or their tenants.

I therefore find that the body corporate could not lawfully levy the applicant for payment of the insurance excess under sections 80(1)(g), 126 or 127.

For those reasons, I uphold unit 116 owners’ claim for reimbursement of insurance excess paid to the body corporate. Result and Costs

The applicant is successful in the claim for the return of the insurance excess paid to the body corporate. I order the body corporate to return the $2,500 to the applicant.

The applicant is unsuccessful in the claim for return of the plumbing expenses paid to the body corporate.

Because the applicant is partly successful in the claim, I order reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee to the applicant.

Both parties seek legal costs.

As each party has had some/limited success my preliminary view is that costs should lie where they fall.

In the event the parties agree with my preliminary view, they should file a joint memorandum, recording their agreement, within 10 working days of the date of this order.

In the event the parties disagree with my preliminary view, and if costs can be agreed, then a joint memorandum should be filed again within 10 working days.

In the further alternative, if the parties disagree with my preliminary view and are not able to agree costs, memoranda are to be filed and served contemporaneously within 10 working days of the date for any joint memorandum.

I will thereafter determine costs on the papers.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9071124. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Body Corporate and	$500.00		Body Corporate and