What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9055264?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 9055264?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055264?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706172-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9055264?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 9055264?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9055264?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9055264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706172-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Longbush, Longbush Tenancy Tribunal Case 9055264 — Leaks

Order

OF THE TRIBUNAL

The hearing is adjourned.

Reasons

The Tribunal has before it, an application filed by one unit owner, against another. However, at the hearing in Masterton today, the parties agreed that the application should be amended so that it was in fact, an application against the body corporate. Given the claims, I am certain that the correct respondent is the body corporate.
However, the body corporate comprises 27 principal units. Of those 27 units, 16 are owned by Mr Thomas, and 11 are owned by Ms Howarth. 1 As I understand matters, most of those principal units are affectively bare land, but there are houses 1 This is based on what I was told at the hearing, I have not seen the titles for these properties. on principal units, 23 and 24, one of those principal units is owned by Mr Thomas, the other Ms Howarth.
But in terms of utility interest (previously known as unit entitlement), Mr Thomas’s units comprise 58.4% of the utility interest, and Ms Howarth’s, 41.6%.
What that means, is that if there is a resolution, Mr Thomas would win the resolution based, either on the usual counting of one vote per principal unit, or if a poll was called.
In any event, it is plain that things have not gone well at this body corporate over the past few years. A range of conflicts have arisen between the parties, which has seen the body corporate bank account frozen, and various allegations passed between the unit owners. There have also been issues with paying for repairs to infrastructure (a septic tank system), and the funding of power to run the infrastructure systems. Mr Thomas states that he has paid the power from the monthly levy payments for his units, in order to ensure that water and sanitation is available to the tenants of the houses on the property. In any event, that has created further problems in that Ms Howarth and Mr Lyth consider the levy payments for Mr Thomas are not up today.
Ultimately Ms Howarth has filed this application with the Tribunal, and I convened a hearing today at which Ms Howarth and Mr Lyth was present, as was Mr Thomas. At the hearing the parties, agreed that the focus should be on moving the body corporate forward. While we discussed, the five claims from the applicant, other, various matters were discussed with the intention of developing a plan to move ghe governance forward in a sustainable way.
I will begin by addressing the five claims confirmed by the applicant at the hearing. Appointment of a body corporate manager
The applicant seeks the Tribunal require that a body corporate manager be appointed. I confirmed I could not make that order. If the applicant wishes to have a body corporate manager appointed, that needs to be a resolution put to the body corporate, and it would be a decision the body corporate would need to make. Perhaps, if the applicants put forward such a resolution, and it was unsuccessful, they could apply to the Tribunal seeking an order of minority relief, but that would be a matter for the future, and it would be by no means certain that the tribunal would make such an order. An order that Mr Thomas not be appointed as body corporate chair
This is not an order that the Tribunal could make. If Mr Thomas is a unit owner, he is entitled to be chair, or any other role in the body corporate. There are some limited circumstances where a person cannot be chair again, such as if they are removed from that role, but that is not the situation here. An order that loans be repaid
It is the case that concerns arose over money being withdrawn from the bank account. Clearly, both parties have differing assessments on what went on, but what is not disputed is that the bank accounts have been frozen following a request from Ms Howarth and Mr Lyth. That then had significant consequences for the payment of work on the complex. As an example, there is a septic tank that supplies both of the dwelling units, and so would be deemed infrastructure under the Unit Titles Act (UTA). The system was leaking and both parties have paid for plumbers to undertake work on that system. The cost for Ms Howarths and Mr Lyth was just under $5,000 that they paid directly. Following discussion, the parties accepted that this work would be the responsibility of the body corporate, and that Ms Howarth and Mr Lyth should be reimbursed what they paid. It was agreed that following the hearing both parties would contact the bank to have the account unfrozen, and that Ms Howarth and Mr Lyth should be refunded the plumbing cost immediately. That is a very sensible way forward.
Beyond that, and AGM is now overdue. We discussed that normally a set of accounts is produced for the AGM, and that will show what funds have gone in and out of the body corporate bank account, and if there are any further concerns, the AGM would be the time to raise it. Repayment of arrears
As I have indicated above, Mr Thomas states that he has withheld some of the levy payments, to cover the power costs that he has paid for. Given the body corporate bank account has been frozen, I can understand why that payment has been made directly by Mr Thomas, as an offset from the levy payments. In any event, as the body corporate has a responsibility to pay for the power charges for the infrastructure, the body corporate would need to pay the power bill, one way, or the other, but again that can be accounted for when the accounts are produced for the next AGM.
I note here the parties agreed that a separate power supply (account) should be arranged where the contracting party is the Body Corporate, that is very sensible. Withdrawal of bank account funds
Plainly the financial management at the complex is a significant bone of contention between the parties. Again each party has a different perspective of things, but it was the concern around the funds that led to the applicants seeking to have the account frozen.
At the last AGM, there was a resolution passed to the effect that neither party could withdraw from the bank account, more than $200 without the necessary body corporate consent. That seems very sensible, it would mean that low-value incidentals such as purchasing petrol for the lawnmower, etc, could be paid for in a simple way, and accounted for ultimately in the body corporate accounts. But beyond $200, then they will need to be body corporate approval.
Again, this may be a very sensible resolution to carry forward at the next AGM, but it would ultimately answer the applicant’s question about the authority to withdraw account funds moving forward. Further matters
Ultimately, the focus at the hearing today was in moving things forward for both parties, to get the body corporate’s operation effective and compliant with the Unit Titles Act 2010.
I encourage the parties to spend time at reviewing the UTA. The UTA provides strict obligations for unit owners, and the body corporate, around the operation and funding of the body corporate complex. That legislation can be found at the following address: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0022/latest/DLM1160440.html
The UTA sets out the requirements around AGMs, and how they are held. That includes a requirement an AGM be convened, no more than 15 months after the prior AGM (section 89). In reality, there is some work to be completed before the next AGM, around, unfreezing the bank accounts, and sorting out the accounts, but given the AGM is now overdue, that should occur with urgency. Hearing adjourned
Again, the focus of the hearing was getting things heading in the right direction for the body corporate. As can be seen, I have not made formal orders, because I am sure that the issues that arise can be resolved between the parties directly. However, I have adjourned the hearing, and in the event the Tribunal can assist with any further problems or impasse that arises, then the parties can request a further hearing, and we can schedule a hearing then so I can assist at that time.
I wish the party as well with the further work needed at the complex, and the next AGM.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9055264 — Leaks in Longbush, Longbush

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9055264 — Leaks in Longbush, Longbush

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

OF THE TRIBUNAL

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

OF THE TRIBUNAL

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions