What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9046364?

The tribunal order states: This application is to be closed on Friday 31 January 2025, unless one of

How much money was awarded in case 9046364?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9046364?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9046364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11010955-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9046364?

The tribunal order states: This application is to be closed on Friday 31 January 2025, unless one of

How much money was awarded in case 9046364?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9046364?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9046364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11010955-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9046364 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Ben Harper attended the hearing in person. Suzanne Harper also attended.

Shawn McManus, the Body Corporate Committee’s chairperson, attended for the Body Corporate. Alana Augustino from Crockers Body Corporate Management Limited, the body corporate manager also attended.

The unit owner claims for “the unnecessary works carried out for repairs, damages caused to out unit during repairs and insurance excess amounts”.

The application names Active Property Services Limited (“APS”) and McNabb Group Properties Limited (“McNabb”)as parties. However, the claim against them likely offends the rule against derivative proceedings. 1 Without making a final determination, I am not going to treat them as parties. Rather, APS is the body corporate’s agent for repairs and maintenance. McNabb is a contractor approved by APS and/or the body corporate manager. 1 See Singh v Boutique Body Corporates [2019] NZHC 1707 at [24] – [40]. Background

The unit below Mr Harper’s unit began leaking a couple of years ago. The leak originates from somewhere in the vicinity of Mr Harper’s unit’s bathroom.

APS had a contractor investigate the problem. The contractor identified the shower base waterproofing as the problem and replaced the waterproofing and tiling. That did not cure the problem.

APS and/or the body corporate manager instructed another contractor to investigate. Evidently that investigation work involved some intrusive work which nullified the previous contractors warranty. Further extensive work was done which largely replicated the previous work. Everything was retiled and resealed up again. The second tranche of work did not cure the problem either. Discussion

I heard evidence and submissions focussed primarily on where the leak was coming from.

The unit owner is adamant the leak wasn’t coming from his shower. The body corporate is convinced it was.

The unit owner has not used shower for about 18 months. There has been at least one significant leaking event in that period, but it may have had a different source to the original leak.

The Tribunal rang Gary McNabb of McNabb. Mr McNabb was 99.8 percent confident the leak was coming from pipes running between the mixer and the shower heads. That area of piping is inaccessible due to double-framing. Mr McNab’s proposed solution was to bypass the existing pipe. That work is likely to cost about $3,000.00.

Mr McManus indicated the BC may be inclined to have the repair work done and cover the cost to reinstate the firewall that had been opened up to attempt to access the area.

The unit owner would, however, not be compensated for his excesses, the $4,809.88 he paid to McNabb, loss of rental income, and related damage to fittings and carpet.

Both parties were inclined to accept that general approach.

On the evidence and submissions I heard, it would be a sensible resolution. Conclusion

Since the parties have the matter in hand, a decision of the Tribunal is not required at this time. However, I am going to keep the file open for six months in case a determination is required after all.

The parties may return to the Tribunal for further mediation or for hearing and determination if required.

Reasons