What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9072404 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 514340 $17,471.68 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9072404?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9072404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13052161-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9072404 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay Body Corporate 514340 $17,471.68 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9072404?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9072404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13052161-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Mt Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9072404 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Mt Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9072404 — Leaks | TenantCheck

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 514340 $17,471.68 immediately, calculated as follows: Unpaid levies - from 14/9/2024 until 13/12/2025 Cost of building/engineering inspection report of exterior cladding Plumbing cost to change water filter Legal costs associated with collection of levies and unpaid charges Crocker’s costs Attendance at hearing Filing fee $7,653.11 $2,549.21 $333.45 $2,564.45 $1,334.00 $224.25 $500.00 Total award before interest $15,158.47 Total interest until 30/1/2026 $2,313.21 Total award including interest$17,471.68

Reasons

Only the representatives for the applicant; legal representative Ms Tobeck and Mr Gaglione representing the Body Corp, attended the hearing. Mr Saxena did not attend.
Very shortly before the hearing the Tribunal was advised that Mr Saxena had requested an adjournment.
Mr Saxena requested the adjournment as he said he had not received notification of the hearing until 25/1/2026 (and it can be presumed that he considered he had not had sufficient time to prepare a response).
Mr Saxena requested that the application be adjourned and referred to mediation.
The applicant objected to the adjournment and the referral.
Mr Saxena was not advised that his request to adjourn had been approved.
Ms Tobeck confirmed that the applicant did not agree to the adjournment as this would only add to costs, and did not agree to attend mediation with Mr Saxena, noting that the parties had previously been unable to agree on a resolution to disputed issues, and it was unlikely agreement would now be reached.
Ms Tobeck confirmed that the notice of hearing, which is dated 16 December 2025, had been sent to Mr Saxena at his new email address on 18 December 2025 and therefore he was on notice that the hearing in regard to unpaid levies and other charges, was scheduled for 30/1/2026.
Having considered this evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Saxena received the notice of the hearing as outlined on 18/12/2025 and that his submission that he did not have notification of the hearing until 25 January 2026 is not correct.
I also accept, having reviewed the previous Tribunal application referred to, that mediation is unlikely to succeed in resolving the dispute and that a referral to mediation would therefore only add to the costs the applicant is claiming and defer proceedings unnecessarily.
Mr Saxena does not appear to dispute that the levies requested are owing, his written submissions disputing the on charges and requesting mediation or further time to pay the levies, have been considered fully.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, the costs of an engineering report obtained in May 2023, (required to test the exterior cladding of Mr Sexton’s unit for water ingress issues, as a consequence of Mr Saxena’s installation of a heat pump at the unit in 2023) and a plumbing cost incurred to change a water filter cartridge at the unit, 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 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.
Mr Saxena does not dispute that he owes the levies, his explanation regarding his difficulties with making payments has been considered but is not a defence to the applicant’s claim which is for an order that he owes the levies and is also responsible for costs associated with his failure to pay the levies.

Does the Unit Owner owe the other on-charges claimed?

This claim relates to two invoices the Body Corporation has received and paid that it considers Mr Saxena is liable to pay.
The first claim is for reimbursement of an invoice of $2,549.21 for a building integrity report that the Body Corporate has incurred which it submits Mr Saxena should pay, as the charge was required because he installed a heat pump at his unit without authorisation and it was therefore necessary for the applicant to establish that the heat pump installation had not compromised the structural integrity of the building which may have ramifications for all owners.
Section 127 (1) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 applies. It applies if... the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act.. and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee. Subsection (2) states that.. any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the expense, is recoverable 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 became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.
Tenancy Tribunal Case 9033462 is relevant. It concerned an application by the applicant to require Mr Saxena to remove a heat pump, he had installed without the consent of the Body Corporate.
Ultimately the application was withdrawn but the applicant requested reimbursement of costs.
The Tribunal issued a Costs Order on 24 July 2023 directing that Mr Saxena pay 40% of the Body Corporate's legal costs associated with the proceedings. The decision noted that “Mr Saxena deliberately breached the body corporate rules by installing the heat pump without the Body Corporate Committee’s permission”. And that “On the information the Committee had before it, the refusal to grant permission was reasonable. Given the risks of vitiating construction warranties, compromising the building’s cladding, and breaching the resource consent, the proceedings were properly brought”.
I do not therefore accept Mr Saxena’s submission that the previous application precludes the applicant from obtaining the building integrity report or requiring Mr Saxena to pay for it. The Tribunal Order suggests that the Body Corp would quite reasonably require the assurances that the report has provided.
In his adjournment request Mr Saxena says the applicant is “expressly precluded” from claiming the expert report costs by a previous Tribunal Order which stated there “was no case or legal basis whatsoever,” for the applicant to have bought a claim requiring him to remove the heat pump
I do not accept his submission. The Tribunal Order stated that Mr Saxena had deliberately breached the Body Corp rules when he installed the heat pump, without consent. The decision also said that the body corporate’s concerns regarding the heat pump installation could be allayed if it received accurate information from Mr Saxena, including from an appropriately qualified engineer, addressing the technical details/safety of the installation.
Mr Saxena has submitted an electrical compliance certificate for the heat pump unit, to the Body Corporate. That report addresses only part of the applicant’s concerns.
The electrical installation report Mr Saxena provided addressed electrical compliance issues but did not address the core risk which the applicant has consistently maintained, is the potential that the installation has physically penetration through the building's exterior cladding and impacted weathertightness, structural integrity and or caused an increased fire risk.
In summary I accept that the report was required by the Body Corporate to ensure that the installation of the heat pump (particularly the required pipes and cabling) did not impact on weathertightness, structural and fire risks or the integrity of the building.
This penetration posed a potential direct threat to the building's weather-tightness and compliance with the New Zealand Building Code, specifically Clause E2 for External Moisture. Any uncertified breach of the building envelope could have put the Body Corporate at risk of failing its Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF), which would have severe implications for insurance and the legal occupancy of all unit owners.
Consequently, it was reasonable for the Body Corporate to engage the engineer, A S Jacobs, a specialist in building envelope and weather-tightness, to verify that the specific wall penetration was correctly sealed and did not negatively impact the structural integrity of the building.
The report confirmed the installation was compliant and I agree it was the only credible means by which the Body Corporate could satisfy its statutory obligations and safeguard the building's warrant of fitness status.
Accordingly, the Body Corporate claim for recovery of the cost of the inspection cost pursuant to s127 of the Unit Title Act is reasonable and approved.
I am satisfied that Mr Saxena is liable for the cost of the engineering report.

Is Mr Saxena also required to pay the plumbing invoice?

ln addition to the engineering report fee, the Body Corporate claims the cost of replacing a defective protection cartridge serving Mr Saxena’s unit.
The Body Corp was alerted that this maintenance work was required when a persistent, high-pitched whining noise emanating from the unit's plumbing infrastructure, was observed by a building occupier and then captured in a video recording on 11 August 2024.
The cartridge is designed to protect the unit's specific water meter and appliances from sediment. When defective, it creates an acoustic nuisance that resonates through the building's structure. ln this instance, no complex testing was required as the noise was sufficiently loud to be traced directly to Mr Saxena’s unit infrastructure and was verified by the video recording.
The water meters, limiting valves, and cartridges are accessed from common corridor ceiling hatches. Because the repair needed to be attended to by a certified plumber and involved work within the common property ceiling space, the Body Corporate coordinated the remediation to safeguard shared infrastructure.
Mr Gaglione said that over several years, several defective cartilages have needed to be replaced at the complex. The Body Corporate has consistently applied this same cost recovery policy and on-charged these costs to every affected unit owner under Section l26 of the Unit Titles Act 2010. This was a standard building-wide protocol, and Mr Saxena had not been singled out to pay the costs. Other unit owners had also queried whether they should have to meet the cost in the past and had all accepted that they must when an explanation was provided, and paid the on charge.
Following the successful replacement of the cartridge by a certified plumber in September 2024, the noise was immediately silenced.
The cartridge is a filter situated immediately before the individual water meter serving Unit G03 exclusively. Its sole purpose is to protect that specific unit's meter and internal appliances from sediment.
Accordingly, the cost is recoverable as a debt due under Section 138(a) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, relating to infrastructure serving a principal unit, and can also be awarded under Section 126 as it is work completed that was substantially for the benefit of Mr Saxena's unit.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies and on charges 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 and on charges. 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 and other appropriately invoiced charges, 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 and on charges, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
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.

Order

[The party] must pay Body Corporate 514340 $17,471.68 immediately, calculated as follows: Unpaid levies - from 14/9/2024 until 13/12/2025 Cost of building/engineering inspection report of exterior cladding Plumbing cost to change water filter Legal costs associated with collection of levies and unpaid charges Crocker’s costs Attendance at hearing Filing fee $7,653.11 $2,549.21 $333.45 $2,564.45 $1,334.00 $224.25 $500.00 Total award before interest $15,158.47 Total interest until 30/1/2026 $2,313.21 Total award including interest$17,471.68

Reasons

Only the representatives for the applicant; legal representative Ms Tobeck and Mr Gaglione representing the Body Corp, attended the hearing. Mr Saxena did not attend.
Very shortly before the hearing the Tribunal was advised that Mr Saxena had requested an adjournment.
Mr Saxena requested the adjournment as he said he had not received notification of the hearing until 25/1/2026 (and it can be presumed that he considered he had not had sufficient time to prepare a response).
Mr Saxena requested that the application be adjourned and referred to mediation.
The applicant objected to the adjournment and the referral.
Mr Saxena was not advised that his request to adjourn had been approved.
Ms Tobeck confirmed that the applicant did not agree to the adjournment as this would only add to costs, and did not agree to attend mediation with Mr Saxena, noting that the parties had previously been unable to agree on a resolution to disputed issues, and it was unlikely agreement would now be reached.
Ms Tobeck confirmed that the notice of hearing, which is dated 16 December 2025, had been sent to Mr Saxena at his new email address on 18 December 2025 and therefore he was on notice that the hearing in regard to unpaid levies and other charges, was scheduled for 30/1/2026.
Having considered this evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Saxena received the notice of the hearing as outlined on 18/12/2025 and that his submission that he did not have notification of the hearing until 25 January 2026 is not correct.
I also accept, having reviewed the previous Tribunal application referred to, that mediation is unlikely to succeed in resolving the dispute and that a referral to mediation would therefore only add to the costs the applicant is claiming and defer proceedings unnecessarily.
Mr Saxena does not appear to dispute that the levies requested are owing, his written submissions disputing the on charges and requesting mediation or further time to pay the levies, have been considered fully.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, the costs of an engineering report obtained in May 2023, (required to test the exterior cladding of Mr Sexton’s unit for water ingress issues, as a consequence of Mr Saxena’s installation of a heat pump at the unit in 2023) and a plumbing cost incurred to change a water filter cartridge at the unit, 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 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.
Mr Saxena does not dispute that he owes the levies, his explanation regarding his difficulties with making payments has been considered but is not a defence to the applicant’s claim which is for an order that he owes the levies and is also responsible for costs associated with his failure to pay the levies.

Does the Unit Owner owe the other on-charges claimed?

This claim relates to two invoices the Body Corporation has received and paid that it considers Mr Saxena is liable to pay.
The first claim is for reimbursement of an invoice of $2,549.21 for a building integrity report that the Body Corporate has incurred which it submits Mr Saxena should pay, as the charge was required because he installed a heat pump at his unit without authorisation and it was therefore necessary for the applicant to establish that the heat pump installation had not compromised the structural integrity of the building which may have ramifications for all owners.
Section 127 (1) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 applies. It applies if... the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act.. and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee. Subsection (2) states that.. any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the expense, is recoverable 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 became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.
Tenancy Tribunal Case 9033462 is relevant. It concerned an application by the applicant to require Mr Saxena to remove a heat pump, he had installed without the consent of the Body Corporate.
Ultimately the application was withdrawn but the applicant requested reimbursement of costs.
The Tribunal issued a Costs Order on 24 July 2023 directing that Mr Saxena pay 40% of the Body Corporate's legal costs associated with the proceedings. The decision noted that “Mr Saxena deliberately breached the body corporate rules by installing the heat pump without the Body Corporate Committee’s permission”. And that “On the information the Committee had before it, the refusal to grant permission was reasonable. Given the risks of vitiating construction warranties, compromising the building’s cladding, and breaching the resource consent, the proceedings were properly brought”.
I do not therefore accept Mr Saxena’s submission that the previous application precludes the applicant from obtaining the building integrity report or requiring Mr Saxena to pay for it. The Tribunal Order suggests that the Body Corp would quite reasonably require the assurances that the report has provided.
In his adjournment request Mr Saxena says the applicant is “expressly precluded” from claiming the expert report costs by a previous Tribunal Order which stated there “was no case or legal basis whatsoever,” for the applicant to have bought a claim requiring him to remove the heat pump
I do not accept his submission. The Tribunal Order stated that Mr Saxena had deliberately breached the Body Corp rules when he installed the heat pump, without consent. The decision also said that the body corporate’s concerns regarding the heat pump installation could be allayed if it received accurate information from Mr Saxena, including from an appropriately qualified engineer, addressing the technical details/safety of the installation.
Mr Saxena has submitted an electrical compliance certificate for the heat pump unit, to the Body Corporate. That report addresses only part of the applicant’s concerns.
The electrical installation report Mr Saxena provided addressed electrical compliance issues but did not address the core risk which the applicant has consistently maintained, is the potential that the installation has physically penetration through the building's exterior cladding and impacted weathertightness, structural integrity and or caused an increased fire risk.
In summary I accept that the report was required by the Body Corporate to ensure that the installation of the heat pump (particularly the required pipes and cabling) did not impact on weathertightness, structural and fire risks or the integrity of the building.
This penetration posed a potential direct threat to the building's weather-tightness and compliance with the New Zealand Building Code, specifically Clause E2 for External Moisture. Any uncertified breach of the building envelope could have put the Body Corporate at risk of failing its Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF), which would have severe implications for insurance and the legal occupancy of all unit owners.
Consequently, it was reasonable for the Body Corporate to engage the engineer, A S Jacobs, a specialist in building envelope and weather-tightness, to verify that the specific wall penetration was correctly sealed and did not negatively impact the structural integrity of the building.
The report confirmed the installation was compliant and I agree it was the only credible means by which the Body Corporate could satisfy its statutory obligations and safeguard the building's warrant of fitness status.
Accordingly, the Body Corporate claim for recovery of the cost of the inspection cost pursuant to s127 of the Unit Title Act is reasonable and approved.
I am satisfied that Mr Saxena is liable for the cost of the engineering report.

Is Mr Saxena also required to pay the plumbing invoice?

ln addition to the engineering report fee, the Body Corporate claims the cost of replacing a defective protection cartridge serving Mr Saxena’s unit.
The Body Corp was alerted that this maintenance work was required when a persistent, high-pitched whining noise emanating from the unit's plumbing infrastructure, was observed by a building occupier and then captured in a video recording on 11 August 2024.
The cartridge is designed to protect the unit's specific water meter and appliances from sediment. When defective, it creates an acoustic nuisance that resonates through the building's structure. ln this instance, no complex testing was required as the noise was sufficiently loud to be traced directly to Mr Saxena’s unit infrastructure and was verified by the video recording.
The water meters, limiting valves, and cartridges are accessed from common corridor ceiling hatches. Because the repair needed to be attended to by a certified plumber and involved work within the common property ceiling space, the Body Corporate coordinated the remediation to safeguard shared infrastructure.
Mr Gaglione said that over several years, several defective cartilages have needed to be replaced at the complex. The Body Corporate has consistently applied this same cost recovery policy and on-charged these costs to every affected unit owner under Section l26 of the Unit Titles Act 2010. This was a standard building-wide protocol, and Mr Saxena had not been singled out to pay the costs. Other unit owners had also queried whether they should have to meet the cost in the past and had all accepted that they must when an explanation was provided, and paid the on charge.
Following the successful replacement of the cartridge by a certified plumber in September 2024, the noise was immediately silenced.
The cartridge is a filter situated immediately before the individual water meter serving Unit G03 exclusively. Its sole purpose is to protect that specific unit's meter and internal appliances from sediment.
Accordingly, the cost is recoverable as a debt due under Section 138(a) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, relating to infrastructure serving a principal unit, and can also be awarded under Section 126 as it is work completed that was substantially for the benefit of Mr Saxena's unit.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner fails to pay levies and on charges 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 and on charges. 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 and other appropriately invoiced charges, 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 and on charges, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
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 9072404 — Leaks in Mt Eden, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9072404 — Leaks in Mt Eden, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Does the Unit Owner owe the other on-charges claimed?

Is Mr Saxena also required to pay the plumbing invoice?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Does the Unit Owner owe the other on-charges claimed?

Is Mr Saxena also required to pay the plumbing invoice?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?