What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9042744?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9042744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9042744?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9042744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850402-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9042744?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9042744?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9042744?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9042744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850402-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Queenstown, Queenstown Tenancy Tribunal Case 9042744 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Eyre and Mr Murphy attended the hearing. Body corporate chairperson Lindley Norris and the body corporate’s consultant/manager Susan Bradley also attended the hearing.
As owner of principal unit 1 of the unit title development at 17 Boundary Street, Queenstown, Mr Eyre contends that the respondent Mr Murphy, as owner of principal units 3, 4 and 5, is occupying common property at the area directly adjacent to PU3, AU3A and Boundary Street (‘the area concerned’) in breach of the body corporate rules, and hindering access to unit 1.
Mr Eyre contends that Mr Murphy’s occupation of the common property is also causing illegal occupation of the council verge on Boundary Street as vehicles are 'overlapping' the boundary on Boundary Street. Mr Eyre says there simply is no space for parking at the area concerned; the turning circle (lack of) means backing out on to Boundary Road is not safe.
Mr Murphy contends that body corporate operational rules permit his use of the area concerned as designated parking space and his use/occupation of the area concerned does not hinder Mr Eyre’s reasonable access to unit 1.
As the area concerned is common property which is owned by the body corporate, I have at the initial hearing on 19 October 2023 joined Body Corporate 25576 to the proceedings to enable all relevant issues arising from use of the area concerned to be properly addressed and determined.
Body Corporate 25576 as the affected party under the Unit Titles Act 2010 is now part of the proceedings and duly represented at the hearing by Ms Norris and Ms Bradley.
The primary issues are: a. whether the body corporate can properly designate the area concerned for parking; b. if so, whether the body corporate has permitted Mr Murphy to use the area for parking; and c. if so, whether there has been substantial and unreasonable interference to Mr Eyre’s right of access to his unit.
At its 21 November 2023 AGM, the body corporate resolved to convert the 2 vertical car parks space situated directed outside principal unit 5 into one horizontal space. While this area concerned has not yet been repainted, the body corporate had approved the new horizontal car park lines ‘as soon as possible after clarification with the Queenstown Lakes District Council’.
On 1 December 2023, the Council emailed the body corporate to clarify that ‘from the plans it is evident that when the carpark spaces fronting unit C (principal unit 5) are occupied, the parked vehicles of unit A (principal unit 1) will adopt crescent- moon shaped manoeuvre by partially going out of the site and then back into the site to exit on to Boundary Street in a forward direction. As this manoeuvre associated with the RVA activity will be undertaken within a low speed and low traffic environment, this can be considered acceptable due to the crossing and driveway of generous width’.
Under those circumstances, the body corporate has duly designated the area concerned for parking and prima facie, the body corporate is entitled to designate the area concerned for horizontal parking and repaint it accordingly.
The applicant says that these issues interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the applicant’s premises, especially its guests who are unaccustomed to reversing at such challenging and angled spots.
Video recordings of vehicles reversing out of unit A show that they are able to do so with greater ease when the area concerned is vacant compared to when a vehicle is horizontally parked at the area concerned which required the reversing driver to better manoeuvre the vehicle and reversing more slowly.
I find however that such inconvenience to the applicant’s guests does not constitute an unreasonable nor substantial interference to unit A’s right of access to and from its unit.
The body corporate is bound by its rules pursuant to section 105(4)(a) of the UTA. Under a democratic framework, members of the body corporate are also bound by body corporate operating rules, including its designation of car parking space.
I agree with Mr Murphy and the body corporate that that there has been no substantial and unreasonable interference to the applicant’s right of access to its unit, unlike the circumstances in Wu v Body Corporate 366611 [2015] NZSC 137.
From the photographs, diagrams and videos adduced, I find that the applicant’s right of entry to and from its unit is maintained and not impractical or overly difficult.
The evidence shows sufficient space for a vehicle (whether cars, SUV or utes) to safely reverse onto the area concerned despite a ute being parked horizontally there. I find that vehicles can enter and exit units A freely and unhindered.
The area concerned should therefore be repainted as adopted by the body corporate in its 21 November 2023 AGM.
Section 138 UTA provides that the body corporate must repair and maintain: (a) the common property; and (b) any assets designed for use in connection with the common property; and (c) any other assets owned by the body corporate; and (d) any building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.
I find that the body corporate, being responsible for the maintenance of common property and the right of way, is entitled to authorise the painting to clarify the scope of the access and permitted parking and enhance the amenity and safety of the unit title complex.
In the upshot, I am satisfied that there is reasonable access, and provision for reasonable use and enjoyment of common property for all unit owners in the development.
There being no substantial and no unreasonable interference to Mr Eyre’s right of access to and from his unit, the application must fail.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Eyre and Mr Murphy attended the hearing. Body corporate chairperson Lindley Norris and the body corporate’s consultant/manager Susan Bradley also attended the hearing.
As owner of principal unit 1 of the unit title development at 17 Boundary Street, Queenstown, Mr Eyre contends that the respondent Mr Murphy, as owner of principal units 3, 4 and 5, is occupying common property at the area directly adjacent to PU3, AU3A and Boundary Street (‘the area concerned’) in breach of the body corporate rules, and hindering access to unit 1.
Mr Eyre contends that Mr Murphy’s occupation of the common property is also causing illegal occupation of the council verge on Boundary Street as vehicles are 'overlapping' the boundary on Boundary Street. Mr Eyre says there simply is no space for parking at the area concerned; the turning circle (lack of) means backing out on to Boundary Road is not safe.
Mr Murphy contends that body corporate operational rules permit his use of the area concerned as designated parking space and his use/occupation of the area concerned does not hinder Mr Eyre’s reasonable access to unit 1.
As the area concerned is common property which is owned by the body corporate, I have at the initial hearing on 19 October 2023 joined Body Corporate 25576 to the proceedings to enable all relevant issues arising from use of the area concerned to be properly addressed and determined.
Body Corporate 25576 as the affected party under the Unit Titles Act 2010 is now part of the proceedings and duly represented at the hearing by Ms Norris and Ms Bradley.
The primary issues are: a. whether the body corporate can properly designate the area concerned for parking; b. if so, whether the body corporate has permitted Mr Murphy to use the area for parking; and c. if so, whether there has been substantial and unreasonable interference to Mr Eyre’s right of access to his unit.
At its 21 November 2023 AGM, the body corporate resolved to convert the 2 vertical car parks space situated directed outside principal unit 5 into one horizontal space. While this area concerned has not yet been repainted, the body corporate had approved the new horizontal car park lines ‘as soon as possible after clarification with the Queenstown Lakes District Council’.
On 1 December 2023, the Council emailed the body corporate to clarify that ‘from the plans it is evident that when the carpark spaces fronting unit C (principal unit 5) are occupied, the parked vehicles of unit A (principal unit 1) will adopt crescent- moon shaped manoeuvre by partially going out of the site and then back into the site to exit on to Boundary Street in a forward direction. As this manoeuvre associated with the RVA activity will be undertaken within a low speed and low traffic environment, this can be considered acceptable due to the crossing and driveway of generous width’.
Under those circumstances, the body corporate has duly designated the area concerned for parking and prima facie, the body corporate is entitled to designate the area concerned for horizontal parking and repaint it accordingly.
The applicant says that these issues interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the applicant’s premises, especially its guests who are unaccustomed to reversing at such challenging and angled spots.
Video recordings of vehicles reversing out of unit A show that they are able to do so with greater ease when the area concerned is vacant compared to when a vehicle is horizontally parked at the area concerned which required the reversing driver to better manoeuvre the vehicle and reversing more slowly.
I find however that such inconvenience to the applicant’s guests does not constitute an unreasonable nor substantial interference to unit A’s right of access to and from its unit.
The body corporate is bound by its rules pursuant to section 105(4)(a) of the UTA. Under a democratic framework, members of the body corporate are also bound by body corporate operating rules, including its designation of car parking space.
I agree with Mr Murphy and the body corporate that that there has been no substantial and unreasonable interference to the applicant’s right of access to its unit, unlike the circumstances in Wu v Body Corporate 366611 [2015] NZSC 137.
From the photographs, diagrams and videos adduced, I find that the applicant’s right of entry to and from its unit is maintained and not impractical or overly difficult.
The evidence shows sufficient space for a vehicle (whether cars, SUV or utes) to safely reverse onto the area concerned despite a ute being parked horizontally there. I find that vehicles can enter and exit units A freely and unhindered.
The area concerned should therefore be repainted as adopted by the body corporate in its 21 November 2023 AGM.
Section 138 UTA provides that the body corporate must repair and maintain: (a) the common property; and (b) any assets designed for use in connection with the common property; and (c) any other assets owned by the body corporate; and (d) any building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.
I find that the body corporate, being responsible for the maintenance of common property and the right of way, is entitled to authorise the painting to clarify the scope of the access and permitted parking and enhance the amenity and safety of the unit title complex.
In the upshot, I am satisfied that there is reasonable access, and provision for reasonable use and enjoyment of common property for all unit owners in the development.
There being no substantial and no unreasonable interference to Mr Eyre’s right of access to and from his unit, the application must fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9042744 — Unit Titles in Queenstown, Queenstown

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9042744 — Unit Titles in Queenstown, Queenstown

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