What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9050184?

The tribunal order states: Kael Shaun Tarawa and Jessica Lee Bennett must pay Body Corporate 385182

How much money was awarded in case 9050184?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9050184?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9050184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138548-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9050184?

The tribunal order states: Kael Shaun Tarawa and Jessica Lee Bennett must pay Body Corporate 385182

How much money was awarded in case 9050184?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9050184?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9050184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138548-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Takapuna, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9050184 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Kael Shaun Tarawa and Jessica Lee Bennett must pay Body Corporate 385182 $7,441.13 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid Levies$3,578.55 Interest$346.62 Breach notices$540.50 Lomg Term Maintenance Account$882.16 Interest$52.42 Costs and Expenses$894.00 Filing Fee$500.00 Preparation and attendance at hearing$646.88 Total award$7,441.13 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $7,441.13

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. Mr Leishman from Boutique Body Corporate Ltd (“BBCL”) represented the Body Corporate. Ms Bennett attended as the Unit Owner.
The Body Corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the Unit Owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

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 the 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.

Is the Unit Owner 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. The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

Is the Unit Owner liable for expenses incurred due to breaches of operational rules?

Under section 127 UTA, where a body corporate does any act rendered necessary by breach of the operational rules by the unit owner, any expense incurred by the body corporate is recoverable as a debt due from the unit owner, together with the reasonable costs of recovering the expense, and interest.
Body Corporate Operational Rules 14 provides:
Animals An owner of a Unit and/or visitors must not, without the prior written consent of the Committee, bring or keep any animal or pet in any Unit or common property. Consent would be subject to appropriate conditions consideration and prior vetting which would be at the cost of owners/occupants of the unit.
There was an issue relating to a cat living onsite at unit C201 in breach of rule 14 of the operational rules. The Body Corporate served notices requiring that the breach be remedied and issued invoices dated 13 October 2023 and 4 December 2023 to the Unit Owner for the cost of the notices.
Ms Bennett disputes liability for the costs as she does not believe there was any evidence the cat was actually living at the unit.
As the applicant in this claim, it is the Body Corporate’s obligation to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied the Body Corporate has been able to show this. The Body Corporate is entitled to impose a no-animal/pets policy. In October 2023, the Body Corporate was provided with a photograph of a cat living onsite at the unit C201. BBCL was advised by email on 3 December 2023 that the cat was “still in residence” and had “made a cameo appearance on their deck yesterday afternoon”. Ms Bennett noted that the unit was tenanted at the time and has not presented any evidence to support her view.
I am satisfied that the Body Corporate incurred expenses dealing with breaches of the operational rules, because BBCL had to write to the Unit Owner requesting that the breaches be remedied. I find that the Unit Owner is liable for BBCL’s costs in terms of attendances relative to the material breaches of the operation rules. I am satisfied the costs in this instance are reasonable.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

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. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
As the Body Corporate has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) UTA and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Kael Shaun Tarawa and Jessica Lee Bennett must pay Body Corporate 385182 $7,441.13 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Unpaid Levies$3,578.55 Interest$346.62 Breach notices$540.50 Lomg Term Maintenance Account$882.16 Interest$52.42 Costs and Expenses$894.00 Filing Fee$500.00 Preparation and attendance at hearing$646.88 Total award$7,441.13 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $7,441.13

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. Mr Leishman from Boutique Body Corporate Ltd (“BBCL”) represented the Body Corporate. Ms Bennett attended as the Unit Owner.
The Body Corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs and the filing fee from the Unit Owner.

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

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 the 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.

Is the Unit Owner 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. The Body Corporate has proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

Is the Unit Owner liable for expenses incurred due to breaches of operational rules?

Under section 127 UTA, where a body corporate does any act rendered necessary by breach of the operational rules by the unit owner, any expense incurred by the body corporate is recoverable as a debt due from the unit owner, together with the reasonable costs of recovering the expense, and interest.
Body Corporate Operational Rules 14 provides:
Animals An owner of a Unit and/or visitors must not, without the prior written consent of the Committee, bring or keep any animal or pet in any Unit or common property. Consent would be subject to appropriate conditions consideration and prior vetting which would be at the cost of owners/occupants of the unit.
There was an issue relating to a cat living onsite at unit C201 in breach of rule 14 of the operational rules. The Body Corporate served notices requiring that the breach be remedied and issued invoices dated 13 October 2023 and 4 December 2023 to the Unit Owner for the cost of the notices.
Ms Bennett disputes liability for the costs as she does not believe there was any evidence the cat was actually living at the unit.
As the applicant in this claim, it is the Body Corporate’s obligation to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied the Body Corporate has been able to show this. The Body Corporate is entitled to impose a no-animal/pets policy. In October 2023, the Body Corporate was provided with a photograph of a cat living onsite at the unit C201. BBCL was advised by email on 3 December 2023 that the cat was “still in residence” and had “made a cameo appearance on their deck yesterday afternoon”. Ms Bennett noted that the unit was tenanted at the time and has not presented any evidence to support her view.
I am satisfied that the Body Corporate incurred expenses dealing with breaches of the operational rules, because BBCL had to write to the Unit Owner requesting that the breaches be remedied. I find that the Unit Owner is liable for BBCL’s costs in terms of attendances relative to the material breaches of the operation rules. I am satisfied the costs in this instance are reasonable.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

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. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004- 0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the levies, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner.
I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
As the Body Corporate has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) UTA and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9050184 — Tenancy dispute in Takapuna, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9050184 — Tenancy dispute in Takapuna, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit Owner liable for expenses incurred due to breaches of operational rules?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit Owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit Owner liable for expenses incurred due to breaches of operational rules?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?