What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9049044?

The tribunal order states: Li-Chen Liu Meng and Kuo-Kang Liu must pay Body Corporate 346799 $312.31

How much money was awarded in case 9049044?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9049044?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9049044?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10042969-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9049044?

The tribunal order states: Li-Chen Liu Meng and Kuo-Kang Liu must pay Body Corporate 346799 $312.31

How much money was awarded in case 9049044?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9049044?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9049044?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10042969-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9049044 — Unit Titles

Order

Li-Chen Liu Meng and Kuo-Kang Liu must pay Body Corporate 346799 $312.31 immediately being outstanding s124 costs on this application.
The Body Corporate’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

A representative attended the hearing for the Body Corporate.
The hearing was held by telephone. The unit owner did not attend. I attempted to call her on two numbers provided in the application.
The Body Corporate had applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
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. The Body Corporate had determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
The Body Corporate fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner did not pay the levies by that date. The Body Corporate made an application to the Tribunal to recover the levies and costs.
The unit owner paid outstanding levies in December 2023. Costs remained an issue. 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. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The Body Corporate representative wrote to the unit owner on 9 February 2024 confirming that levies were now up to date but noting that $5,004.49 was outstanding for costs and interest. The Body Corporate requested payment by 16 February 2024. The letter concluded: “Failure to make payment of $5,004.49 in full will result in the hearing on 5 March 2024 proceeding. This will incur further section 124 costs, which will be recoverable from you”.
There was no response to the 9 February 2024 letter.
The Body Corporate provided another breakdown of the outstanding claims on 26 February 2024. In that email the Body Corporate claimed $5,316.80 as follows: a. Levy Due (20/02/24)$ 488.24 b. Section 124 costs to date $4,069.50 c. GST (section 124 costs) $ 610.42 d. Disbursements $ 148.64 e. Total $5,316.80
The Body Corporate advised the unit owner that it would withdraw this application if it received payment in full on 26 February.
The unit owner did not reply to the correspondence but made a payment of $5,004.49 on 27 February 2024. Claims at the Hearing
At the hearing the Body Corporate claimed the levy due on 20 February 2024 ($488.24).
The Body Corporate also claimed “the difference” between a costs invoice purportedly issued to it on 26 February ($6,219.37) and the amount paid by the unit owner on 27 February 2024. That is, the Body Corporate claimed s124 costs of $1,286.88.
The Body Corporate’s oral evidence was that further costs were incurred after the unit owner failed to pay $5,316.80 on 26 February 2024.
The claims at the hearing were ill-conceived. The Body Corporate had not allocated the 27 February 2024 payment to any particular component of its claim. There was no evidence of costs incurred after 26 February 2024; the time records submitted end on 26 February 2024.
It is not for the Tribunal to calculate an amount outstanding or to attempt to quantify the Body Corporate’s claim. The Body Corporate has the onus of establishing its claims. Decision
On 26 February 2024, the Body Corporate represented to the until owner that the amount owing was $5,316.80. That amount comprised levies of $488.24 and costs of $4,828.56.
The owner paid $5,004.49 as requested on 9 February 2024. The payment was made on 27 February. Applying $488.24 of the payment towards the outstanding levies, left a balance of $312.31 owing for costs only.
The Body Corporate representative claimed that further costs were incurred after 26 February 2024, but there is no evidence of that. The time records are for the period to 26 February 2026. The Body Corporate told the unit owner that costs to that date were $4,828.56, but at the hearing attempted to claim costs of $6,219.37 to the same date, without proper explanation for the difference. I am not satisfied that the additional costs have been reasonably incurred by the Body Corporate, or incurred at all.
I have declined to award costs for attendance at the hearing as the Tribunal was not assisted by the Body Corporate representative. Rather, I have spent considerable time attempting to reconcile payments and the differing amounts claimed by the Body Corporate.
I have awarded $312.31 in respect of the section 124 costs only. The Body Corporate has established that costs claimed to 26 February were reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies.
The unit owner has already paid the Tribunal filing fee on this application.

Order

Li-Chen Liu Meng and Kuo-Kang Liu must pay Body Corporate 346799 $312.31 immediately being outstanding s124 costs on this application.
The Body Corporate’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

A representative attended the hearing for the Body Corporate.
The hearing was held by telephone. The unit owner did not attend. I attempted to call her on two numbers provided in the application.
The Body Corporate had applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the unit owner.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
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. The Body Corporate had determined the levies payable and unit owner's share has been calculated according to their utility interest.
The Body Corporate fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and the unit owner did not pay the levies by that date. The Body Corporate made an application to the Tribunal to recover the levies and costs.
The unit owner paid outstanding levies in December 2023. Costs remained an issue. 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. See section 124(1) Unit Titles Act 2010.
The Body Corporate representative wrote to the unit owner on 9 February 2024 confirming that levies were now up to date but noting that $5,004.49 was outstanding for costs and interest. The Body Corporate requested payment by 16 February 2024. The letter concluded: “Failure to make payment of $5,004.49 in full will result in the hearing on 5 March 2024 proceeding. This will incur further section 124 costs, which will be recoverable from you”.
There was no response to the 9 February 2024 letter.
The Body Corporate provided another breakdown of the outstanding claims on 26 February 2024. In that email the Body Corporate claimed $5,316.80 as follows: a. Levy Due (20/02/24)$ 488.24 b. Section 124 costs to date $4,069.50 c. GST (section 124 costs) $ 610.42 d. Disbursements $ 148.64 e. Total $5,316.80
The Body Corporate advised the unit owner that it would withdraw this application if it received payment in full on 26 February.
The unit owner did not reply to the correspondence but made a payment of $5,004.49 on 27 February 2024. Claims at the Hearing
At the hearing the Body Corporate claimed the levy due on 20 February 2024 ($488.24).
The Body Corporate also claimed “the difference” between a costs invoice purportedly issued to it on 26 February ($6,219.37) and the amount paid by the unit owner on 27 February 2024. That is, the Body Corporate claimed s124 costs of $1,286.88.
The Body Corporate’s oral evidence was that further costs were incurred after the unit owner failed to pay $5,316.80 on 26 February 2024.
The claims at the hearing were ill-conceived. The Body Corporate had not allocated the 27 February 2024 payment to any particular component of its claim. There was no evidence of costs incurred after 26 February 2024; the time records submitted end on 26 February 2024.
It is not for the Tribunal to calculate an amount outstanding or to attempt to quantify the Body Corporate’s claim. The Body Corporate has the onus of establishing its claims. Decision
On 26 February 2024, the Body Corporate represented to the until owner that the amount owing was $5,316.80. That amount comprised levies of $488.24 and costs of $4,828.56.
The owner paid $5,004.49 as requested on 9 February 2024. The payment was made on 27 February. Applying $488.24 of the payment towards the outstanding levies, left a balance of $312.31 owing for costs only.
The Body Corporate representative claimed that further costs were incurred after 26 February 2024, but there is no evidence of that. The time records are for the period to 26 February 2026. The Body Corporate told the unit owner that costs to that date were $4,828.56, but at the hearing attempted to claim costs of $6,219.37 to the same date, without proper explanation for the difference. I am not satisfied that the additional costs have been reasonably incurred by the Body Corporate, or incurred at all.
I have declined to award costs for attendance at the hearing as the Tribunal was not assisted by the Body Corporate representative. Rather, I have spent considerable time attempting to reconcile payments and the differing amounts claimed by the Body Corporate.
I have awarded $312.31 in respect of the section 124 costs only. The Body Corporate has established that costs claimed to 26 February were reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid levies.
The unit owner has already paid the Tribunal filing fee on this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9049044 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9049044 — Unit Titles in Auckland, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions