What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700689?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4700689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599580-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700689?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4700689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599580-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

163 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700689 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

I held a directions conference with the parties today. Dr Ahmed Bashir and manager Ms Tanzi attended for Farihah Properties Ltd (FPL); Ms Cavermann attended for Fuschia Fashions 2010 Ltd (FFL); and Mr Wilkinson for Rialto Centre Management Incorporated (RCM Inc).

The application has been made by 2 of the unit owners in a Unit Title development where RCM Inc manages services such as security and cleaning in the Rialto Shopping Centre in Newmarket Auckland.

BC 425225 is a Body Corporate comprising 15 units (in Lot 5), 13 of which are owned by one owner, 1 by FPL (Dr Bashir), and 1 by Ms Cavermann and her husband (FFL).

The application was made after the Disputes Tribunal declined jurisdiction. That is because the Tenancy Tribunal has sole originating jurisdiction for unit titles disputes.

Essentially, this is a dispute between 2 of the unit owners and the Body Corporate concerning the levies they have been charged. The unit owners believe the majority owner has influenced the levies charged to them as minority owners.

Whether they have grounds to challenge the levies for which they have been invoiced is something on which they might need to take legal advice. The Tribunal is not an advisory body. Levies can only be charged as authorised by the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA).

The application was made as a landlord/tenant application. It cannot proceed on that basis for two reasons.

First the parties are not in a landlord/tenant relationship. Second the dispute is a Unit Titles dispute as between owners and the Body Corporate. The filing fee for that kind of application is much higher than a landlord/ tenant application.

I have dismissed the current application because it cannot proceed as framed.

The way forward is for the unit owners (if they wish to proceed after taking advice) to lodge a Unit Title application against BC425225. If the parties agree to attend mediation, the filing fee might be reduced.

The Tribunal encourages parties to attend mediation first. It is a confidential process that often results in the informal resolution of a dispute. It seemed to the Tribunal today that the unit owners did not fully understand the basis on which their levies have been calculated, that is, according to their ownership interest.

If making an application, the unit owners must name themselves to reflect their unit title ownership as noted in the record of title for each unit. Their trading names are not necessarily relevant unless they reflect the ownership stated on the record of title.

RCM Inc will not be a party to any Unit Title application made by the unit owners. Its role as a manger of services in the shopping centre (as required by Auckland Council) is entirely distinct from the setting of levies by the Body Corporate.

If the parties choose not to attend mediation, or fail to reach an agreement at mediation, their application will be set for hearing before the Tribunal in its Unit Titles jurisdiction.

Reasons

The application has been made by 2 of the unit owners in a Unit Title development where RCM Inc manages services such as security and cleaning in the Rialto Shopping Centre in Newmarket Auckland.

BC 425225 is a Body Corporate comprising 15 units (in Lot 5), 13 of which are owned by one owner, 1 by FPL (Dr Bashir), and 1 by Ms Cavermann and her husband (FFL).

The application was made after the Disputes Tribunal declined jurisdiction. That is because the Tenancy Tribunal has sole originating jurisdiction for unit titles disputes.

The application was made as a landlord/tenant application. It cannot proceed on that basis for two reasons.

I have dismissed the current application because it cannot proceed as framed.

If the parties choose not to attend mediation, or fail to reach an agreement at mediation, their application will be set for hearing before the Tribunal in its Unit Titles jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700689 — Cleanliness at 163 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700689 — Cleanliness at 163 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions