What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073985 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9073985?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073985?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13999234-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9073985 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9073985?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9073985?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9073985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13999234-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9073985 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.
Costs to be determined on the papers, if sought by the body corporate.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 June 2026. Ms [The party] is the former owner of the unit. She was represented by her son Mr Lennon Xi whereas Ms Sandy Wu represented Body Corporate 318566; Ms Wu is employed as body corporate manager of Boutique Body Corporates Limited.
The applicant claimed that the body corporate has unfairly charged her interest and penalties on outstanding levies. The applicant says they made no attempt to contact her by phone and relied solely on sending letters to the property address.
The applicant submits that in today’s environment, it is reasonable to expect that if there was no response to written correspondence, the body corporate would make further efforts to contact the owner, such as by phone or email.
Because the property has always been tenanted, the body corporate could have easily contacted her tenant as the body corporate holds her contact details through her property agent.
The applicant says that the body corporate failed to take reasonable steps to reach her; this made the body corporate’s conduct negligent.
The applicant maintains that she has attempted to resolve this matter with the body corporate directly, but they do not accept that they have acted improperly.
The applicant sought the Tribunal’s assistance to resolve this dispute and review the interest and penalties charged and paid by the applicant during the sale of her property.
The interest and penalties stated and claimed on the Tribunal application form was $3,879.13. This was the amount sought to be returned to the applicant.
During the hearing, Mr Xi accepted that the actual amounts in dispute as stated under item g) of the pre-settlement disclosure statement of the sale as prepared by Boutique Body Corporates Limited (‘Boutique BC’) on behalf of the body corporate at the time of the applicant’s sale of the unit totals only $1,587.43 which consisted of: • $792.75 being the costs incurred debt collection letters and notices of intention to issue proceedings. • $794.68 being penalty interest incurred at 10% per annum through to 5 June 2025 (settlement date).
Accordingly, Mr Xi, on behalf of her mother/the applicant, sought the return of $1,587.43 which had been paid under protest to the body corporate during the sale of the property.
The material issue is whether the body corporate was entitled to charge the applicant debt collection costs for issuance of demand letters and notices of intention to issue proceedings, and penalty interest for late payment of the outstanding levies.
The applicant does not dispute that levies were initially owed, but subsequently paid, albeit late.
The applicant’s dispute is centered on the initial demand made for payment of the levies which she had not received due to her being overseas in China at the material times.
I find however that the body corporate has duly sent the applicant the levy demands to the physical and email address of service recorded for the unit owner.
The body corporate levied unit owners as follows: a) At its Annual General Meeting on 8 September 2022, the body corporate raised levies for the 2022/23 financial year based on the approved budget. Payment was due in two equal instalments on 8 November 2022 and 8 March 2023. b) At its Annual General Meeting on 31 August 2023, the body corporate raised levies for the 2023/24 financial year based on the approved budget. Payment was due in two equal instalments on 8 November 2023 and 8 March 2024. c) At its Annual General Meeting on 9 September 2024, the body corporate raised levies for the 2024/25 financial year based on the approved budget. Payment was due in two equal instalments on 8 November 2024 and 8 March 2025.
When the applicant failed to make payment of the second instalment of the 2022/23 levy by due date, the body corporate instituted its approved debt collection process which involved: a) A reminder statement being emailed to the applicant at panbaoxuan118@gmail.com on 24 March 2023; b) A first formal letter on 5 May 2023; c) A second formal letter on 7 June 2023 (with an attaching charge of $85 plus GST); d) A final demand on 13 July 2023 (with an attaching charge of $165 plus GST); and e) A notice of intention to issue proceedings on 23 August 2023 (with an attaching charge of $85 plus GST). This notice was also posted to the mailing address held for the unit at the time, being 34 Attlee Crescent, Bryndwr, Christchurch 0853.
The body corporate’s charges for collection costs and penalty interest were made pursuant to sections 124 and 128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).
I do not consider that the body corporate or their managers were obliged to phone the defaulting unit owner personally when levy payments are missed.
Section 80(1)(f) UTA states that an owner of a principal unit “must pay all rates, taxes, charges, body corporate levies, and other outgoings that are from time to time payable in respect of the unit.”
Section 85 UTA requires an owner of a principal unit to “notify the body corporate in writing of any changes to the information held in the register that relates to his or her unit”.
An email was received from the applicant on 7 September 2023 denying having received any invoices or communications (despite the address they were emailing from being the same as that to which Boutique BC had sent the invoice and subsequent communications).
The applicant advised they were prepared to make payment of the outstanding levy, but not the collection charges which resulted from their non-payment.
The applicant provided an alternative postal address of 3 Olympic Lane, Edgeware, Christchurch and requested that future communications be by post to that address.
Boutique BC responded to the applicant on 8 September 2023, supplying copies of the previous email communications and noting they had been emailed to the address the applicant was now emailing from.
Boutique BC explained to the applicant that the charges could not be waived as they were an actual cost to the body corporate and must be recovered from the unit owner concerned.
Having found that the body corporate, acting through Boutique BC, has properly levied the unit owner and properly notified the unit owner at their correct email address and postal address as recorded on the unit owners’ register, I reject the applicant’s assertion that the body corporate had been negligent.
I also reject the applicant’s contention that the body corporate failed to take reasonable steps to notify the unit owner of the levies payable at the material times.
I reiterate that pursuant to section 85 UTA, the onus was on the applicant, as unit owner, to notify the body corporate in writing of any changes to their address for service held in the register that relates to her unit.
An owner cannot blame the body corporate for missed emails due to overseas travel or internet blocks to her own nominated Gmail address. If the applicant/owner goes to a country like China where Gmail is blocked, it is their responsibility to set up an alternative contact method before they leave.
I now consider whether the unit owner is liable for collection costs incurred by the body corporate and interest charged for late payment of levies.

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.
More recently, the District Court in Body Corporate 85928 v Sherry [2022] NZDC 11535, Body Corporate 45131 v 88 Chi Limited [2023] NZDC 9036 and Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645 endorsed the body corporate’s recovery of full solicitor/client (or indemnity) costs under section 124 UTA.
Section 124(2) UTA does not refer only to legal costs; rather, it addresses costs (which would include legal costs). Reasonable administrative tasks incurred in the recovery of the outstanding levies fall under reasonable costs under section 124(2) and are recoverable in full from the unit owner as a debt owing to the body corporate. They are tasks that Boutique BC reasonably charges their client, ie., the body corporate, for, and that is the test for recoverability.
In Body Corporate 346799 v Gueirard & Vu [2023] NZDC 19645, Judge Clark held that the question on reasonableness is whether the collection costs incurred are consistent with the work and tasks that needed to be completed to pursue the debt/outstanding levies.
I accept Ms Wu’s submission that the attendances against the applicant was only for the defaulting unit owner pursuant to an approved body corporate debt recovery process.
The body corporate at an Informal Meeting of Owners held on 18 August 2011 and ratified at a Reconvened Annual General Meeting on 25 August 2011, confirmed, its previously agreed policy in respect of debt collection, and resolved: “The Body Corporate adopt Boutique Body Corporates Limited’s standard debt collection procedure, which allows for: -A statement to be issued to all owners from whom payment is not received by due date -A first letter after 14 days -A second letter after a further 14 days -A final demand, followed by the issue of proceedings.” “Boutique Body Corporates Limited, and it associate Body Corporate Legal Services Limited be authorised to act as agent of the Body Corporate in the recovery of debtor arrears, including the preparation and filing of proceedings and attendance at any Tenancy Tribunal hearing.” “That all costs associated with debt recovery, together with penalty interest at 10% per from due date until payment is received, be oncharged to the proprietor in default in accordance with Sections 124(2) and 128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.”
The process approved by the body corporate requires a series of written communication being sent to the owner in default, with administration costs attaching to the second and subsequent formal communication. A copy of the flowchart presented to the meeting setting out the process has been attached to the minutes of meeting.
I find that Boutique BC’s charges amounting to $792.75 towards debt collection letters and notices of intention to issue proceedings are reasonable.
Following the line of authorities set out above, I consider that the body corporate is entitled to recover the sum of $792.75 as reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies as a statutory debt due by the unit owner.
The reasonableness of the legal and collection costs is viewed on a solicitor-client basis. Consequently, where the solicitor/body corporate manager has reasonably charged their client (the body corporate) those costs for collecting the overdue levies are also due and payable by the unit owner pursuant to section 124 UTA.
It was therefore in order for Boutique BC to insists on payment of $792.75 from the applicant because they were reasonably incurred.

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 of $794.68 owing to 5 June 2025 (settlement date). Conclusion
Having been satisfied that the collection costs charged by Boutique BC are reasonable on a solicitor-client basis, and the interest payable, I do not have any discretion to waive any of those costs or interest.
Pursuant to sections 124 and 128 UTA, collection costs and interest become a statutory debt which accords no discretion on the Tribunal to waive or discount.
For those reasons, I dismiss the applicant’s claim for the return of $1,587.43 paid by the unit owner towards penalty interest and collection costs.
Leave is given to the body corporate to seek costs, if any, for their successful defence of the applicant’s claim in this Tribunal proceeding.
A decision on costs will be determined on the papers, after written submissions from the body corporate within 7 days from this order, and reply submissions from the applicant/unit owner within 14 days from the date of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073985 — 14-day notice in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9073985 — 14-day notice in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.