What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9043625?

The tribunal order states: Samina Malikova and Jaffar Jadoon must pay Body Corporate 365758

How much money was awarded in case 9043625?

ApplicantRespondent Outstanding Levi…: $14,172.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9043625?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9043625?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9574296-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9043625?

The tribunal order states: Samina Malikova and Jaffar Jadoon must pay Body Corporate 365758

How much money was awarded in case 9043625?

ApplicantRespondent Outstanding Levi…: $14,172.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9043625?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9043625?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9574296-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

New Plymouth, New Plymouth Tenancy Tribunal Case 9043625 — Unit Titles

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9043625. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ApplicantRespondent Outstanding levies (consent	$14,172.11		ApplicantRespondent Outstanding levies (consent

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9043625. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ApplicantRespondent Outstanding levies (consent	$14,172.11		ApplicantRespondent Outstanding levies (consent

Order

Samina Malikova and Jaffar Jadoon must pay Body Corporate 365758 $14,172.11 by 3 November 2023, calculated as follows: DescriptionApplicantRespondent Outstanding levies (consent)$14,172.11 Total payable by Applicant to Respondent $14,172.11
By consent, Body Corporate 365758 must appoint an independent body corporate manager. This order is conditional on the unit owners paying their outstanding levies by 3 November 2023.
Body Corporate 365758 must immediately remove a sign from the fence at the front of Unit A, 45 Vivian Street, New Plymouth.
Body Corporate 365758 must immediately provide Samina Malikova and Jaffar Jadoon with a key to access the fire alarm system.
The unit owners’ claims for compensation and for orders for repairs to be carried out are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Patrick Landrigan, the body corporate chairperson, represented the body corporate.
The body corporate has applied for outstanding levies, interest and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The unit owners seek orders for the appointment of a professional body corporate manager, compensation, the removal of a sign, the provision of a key to the alarm system, and an order for various repairs. Background
This body corporate first came before the Tribunal in March 2020. The orders sought then related to unpaid levies and the owners’ tenants not following the body corporate rules.
The Tribunal dismissed the body corporate’s application for unpaid levies because it found the levies had not correctly been set. The Tribunal also made an order for the unit owners (and their tenants) to refrain from breaching the body corporate operational rules.
Since then, the unit owners have not paid any levies. One consequence of their failure to do so was that the body corporate could not afford to insure the unit title complex. It advised the tenants that they would have to insure their unit themselves.
This is a situation where two of the three units are owned jointly by members of the Landrigan family and Kevin James Murphy as trustees; the other unit by Jaffar Jadoon and Samina Malikova.
As recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 18 March 2020, Ms Malikova ‘has an overwhelming view that the body corporate is not operating fairly, in that given there are only three units, and two units are owned by the Landrigans (and Mr Murphy), that they simply out vote her on any matters, and to that extent the owners of the other two units call the tune’.
At the hearing today, that sense of grievance was amplified. It was clear to the Tribunal that this body corporate is dysfunctional, and change is needed. The claim for levies
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, and the filing fee from the unit owners.
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 (UTA).
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) UTA. The body corporate has provided records to prove the amount claimed.
The unit owners accepted the amount of unpaid levies and undertook to pay them within 7 days. I have allowed that time as they need to transfer funds from an Australian bank account. The order for the payment of levies is made by consent.

Are the unit owners 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 UTA.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies.
However, I am not persuaded to award the body corporate’s claim for interest.
Mr Landrigan said the body corporate was prepared to waive the claim for interest for the 2022 levy year (subject to the immediate payment of levies) because the unit owners might not have received proper notification of the AGM at which the resolution approving interest for that year was passed.
The unit owners did not attend the 2023 AGM. Again, they say they did not receive notification of the meeting because the email address for Ms Malikova was incorrect. She said she advised her new email address verbally.
The notice of the 2023 AGM was separately emailed to Mr Jadoon at his usual email address. I find that the unit owners were properly notified. Ms Malikova said she did not attend that AGM because she was awaiting the determination of the applications by the Tribunal.
By law, unit owners who have not paid their levies are not entitled to vote so to an extent the unit owners would not have achieved much by attending the meeting anyway.
However, I was not provided with a breakdown of the interest charged year by year so I cannot make an order for interest excluding the 2022 levy year which Mr Landrigan conceded the body corporate would waive.
And although the decision to not pay their levies was misguided, the unit owners’ grievances are genuine. The Tribunal already struck down the levies claim in 2020 on procedural grounds. And at least one of the AGM notifications since then did not properly reach the unit owners.
That said, the unit owners need to understand that they are not passive participants. They too could have enquired about the date of the AGMs rather than simply not paid their levies. Their decision not to pay deprived them of voting rights. The unit owners’ grievances
The unit owners have many grievances. They stem from the perceived attitude of the owners of the other two units whom they perceive as controlling the body corporate.
The body corporate is not a legal entity like a company. It comprises all the unit owners. In a small unit title development such as this, situations can arise where the majority controls the operation of the body corporate unfairly. And sometimes (which seems to be the case here) there is simply a clash of personalities.
It was clear to the Tribunal that without some kind of reset, this body corporate will remain dysfunctional.
The parties consented to the appointment of an independent body corporate management company to manage this body corporate. That seems a sensible first step. They should endeavour to reach an agreement on which firm to appoint.
Mr Jadoon appeared concerned that the same personalities will still be in control. Because of the make up of the body corporate, that is true. But with professional management, many of the issues before the Tribunal now should be able to be quickly and easily resolved.
The parties have access to the Tribunal if decisions are made by the majority that are objectively unfair or oppressive on the minority.
And sometimes the break down in the relationship is such that a change of ownership is the only realistic solution.
I have made an order by consent for the body corporate to appoint an independent body corporate manager. That order is conditional on the unit owners paying their outstanding levies by 3 November 2023. Removal of sign
Mr Landrigan has placed a sign advertising his accounting business on the fence that surrounds Unit A. He said that the fence is part of the body corporate’s common property, and a resolution was passed enabling the sign to be placed there.
This is an example of the majority acting contrary to the wishes of the minority.
Ms Samina complained to the New Plymouth Council environmental planning officer.
Mr Landrigan said the sign writers were still in the process of negotiating with the Council following the complaint made.
This sign must be removed immediately until clear authorisation has been obtained from the Council. Then, before it can be erected again, there must be another vote and resolution passed by the body corporate. Hopefully, the appointment of an independent body corporate manager will guide the parties and help them deal with this issue. But from the Tribunal’s perspective, the unit owners’ objection to the placement of this sign is understandable. Provision of key to building alarm system
There is a common alarm system in the building. Mr Landrigan has key access to where the alarm is situated; the unit owners do not.
The unit owners are entitled to have key access to the area where the alarm is located. The body corporate must immediately provide them with a key.
Mr Landrigan’s concern is that the unit owners will provide the key to their tenant. That is a separate issue. He said he is always available to deal with any alarm reset in the event of the alarm mistakenly triggering. He has no greater right to a key to the alarm system than these unit owners. Compensation and repairs
The unit owners have a long list of claims for repairs and compensation for alleged failures by the body corporate. Included is their grievance that they paid for their own insurance cover when the body corporate managed to find new insurance for the unit title premises.
There is an obvious contradiction in the unit owners’ position. On the one hand they did not pay their levies (and still have not). On the other, they claim that the body corporate has not attended to repairs.
Without funds, the body corporate could not pay the insurance premium in May 2020, let alone consider funding any repairs.
Any alleged repairs not attended to by the body corporate are a consequence of the unit owners’ failure to pay their levies. When funds became available from the other unit owners the body corporate obtained insurance.
There is no loss here to compensate.
Once the unit owners have paid their levies, they can raise any repair issues with the newly appointed body corporate manager and proper process will follow.
It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to make any orders currently. This includes any direction about the placement of rubbish bins. That too can be dealt with by the appointed body corporate manager.
The unit owners also raised issues as between Mr Landrigan and their tenant. Section 171(2)(g) UTA allows an occupier of a principal unit to make an application to the Tribunal against a body corporate. The tenant has that option should they have issues with the body corporate they cannot resolve. In other words, the dispute (if there is one) is between the occupier (the tenant) and the body corporate, not between the unit owners and the body corporate. Filing fees
Each party has sought reimbursement of the filing fees they paid. Each has been party but not wholly successful. Even if awarded, reimbursement to one party would be cancelled by reimbursement to the other. I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees to either party.
For clarity (and with the agreement of the unit owners to include them in this order) the email contacts for Ms Samina are: •Samina.malikova@corrections.qld.govt.au • Samina.malikova @corrections.govt.nz And for Mr Jadoon •Jadoon.npl@gmail.com
All body corporate communications should be emailed to those addresses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9043625 — Unit Titles in New Plymouth, New Plymouth

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9043625 — Unit Titles in New Plymouth, New Plymouth

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the unit owners liable for interest?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the unit owners liable for interest?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions