What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9058224?

The tribunal order states: Pengfei Wang must pay Body Corporate 476439 $26,550.26 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9058224?

Filing Fee: $26,550.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9058224?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9058224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779673-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9058224?

The tribunal order states: Pengfei Wang must pay Body Corporate 476439 $26,550.26 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9058224?

Filing Fee: $26,550.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9058224?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9058224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11779673-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9058224 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9058224 — Unit Titles | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9058224. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL	$26,550.26		per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Claims and awards for application 9058224. Verify on MoJ.

per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Amount: $26,550.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

Pengfei Wang must pay Body Corporate 476439 $26,550.26 immediately, calculated as follows: Overdue Levies19,468.40 Strata debt collection costs920.00 Section 124 costs including GST and disbursements 3,207.64 Appearance at hearing ($350.00 per hour x 1 hour, plus GST)
50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72

TOTAL

$26,550.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wang was assisted by an interpreter.
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.
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) Unit Titles Act 2010. The Body Corporate has provided records to prove the amounts claimed and ordered above for levies, as ordered above.
I note that Mr Wang submitted that the issue is he is not in position to pay the levies. He claims there are defects with the building. The levies include operational and special levies to address issues with the building. If the levies are not paid, the works cannot be completed. The burden falls on other unit holders. Although I have sympathy for Mr Wang’s position, he must pay these levies.

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 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The Body Corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. The Body Corporate has proven the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date, as ordered above.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

The Body Corporate claims the sums of $3207.64 for legal costs, $805 for legal costs associated with the hearing, $930 for the Body Corporate administration charges.
The Body Corporate submits that the debt collection charges are approved by way of resolution recorded in minutes of the Body Corporate but are however alleged by the Body Corporate to nevertheless be payable by the respondent pursuant to s 124 of the UTA because they are amount “reasonable costs”.
Pursuant to section 124 UTA the Body Corporate is entitled to recover all “debt collecting costs” by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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.
The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was recently discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4
The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the basics of the relevant legal framework as: 5 a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.
Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.
At para [8], the Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185. 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted. (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way. Analysis and application of the law The legal costs
I deal first with the legal costs that are claimed and then with the Body Corporate costs.
Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the correspondence exchanged and the relevant terms of engagement letter from its solicitors, which sets out the range of charge-out rates for those who would be working on the matter. The terms of engagement does not give an estimate of costs, which is perhaps unusual, given the solicitors would have a very good understanding of the sort of fee likely to be charged in this sort of application, at least on an undefended basis.
I am satisfied that the material filed shows that: a) the work undertaken was likely similar to other applications of this nature, but still need to be checked and completed carefully, b) there were no unnecessary attendances. The charges are reasonable in terms of the sorts of other costs orders the tribunal makes in cases of this sort.
Even although the work might be regarded as somewhat formulaic, consistent with similar applications of this nature made before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that all of these steps that were undertaken are required to ensure the information is correct and the relevant material completed correctly with respect to this particular case. Just because the application might be regarded as generic or similar to many other applications does not mean a rigorous approach should not be taken to ensuring that the documentation is completed correctly.
Taking a “standing back assessment”, I am of the view that the legal costs that have been charged would, in this case, be within the standard commercial range for this sort of work.
I note further that the incurring of these costs by a unit holder only arises following letters of demand and follow-ups first by the Body Corporate and then by the Solicitors acting. The unit holder is therefore given every opportunity to pay and advice that they will be liable for costs in the event the arrears are not paid.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the actual solicitor and client costs are, in the circumstances of this case, reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levies and can therefore be recovered from the unit owner. I find that an additional charge of $350 plus GST should be allowed for time spent in preparing for and attending the hearing today. I therefore do not allow the full amount claimed for the hearing today of $805. The Body Corporate costs 23In relation to the Body Corporate charges, I am satisfied, based on the submissions made, that they are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Had payment been made following reminders then it would have avoided the need to instruct solicitors.
Because the Body Corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9058224. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL	$26,550.26		per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Claims and awards for application 9058224. Verify on MoJ.

per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Amount: $26,550.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: per hour x 1 hour, plus GST) 402.50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72 TOTAL

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

Pengfei Wang must pay Body Corporate 476439 $26,550.26 immediately, calculated as follows: Overdue Levies19,468.40 Strata debt collection costs920.00 Section 124 costs including GST and disbursements 3,207.64 Appearance at hearing ($350.00 per hour x 1 hour, plus GST)
50 Application filing fee500.00 Interest to 1 May 2025 2,051.72

TOTAL

$26,550.26

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wang was assisted by an interpreter.
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.
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) Unit Titles Act 2010. The Body Corporate has provided records to prove the amounts claimed and ordered above for levies, as ordered above.
I note that Mr Wang submitted that the issue is he is not in position to pay the levies. He claims there are defects with the building. The levies include operational and special levies to address issues with the building. If the levies are not paid, the works cannot be completed. The burden falls on other unit holders. Although I have sympathy for Mr Wang’s position, he must pay these levies.

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 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The Body Corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. The Body Corporate has proven the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date, as ordered above.

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

The Body Corporate claims the sums of $3207.64 for legal costs, $805 for legal costs associated with the hearing, $930 for the Body Corporate administration charges.
The Body Corporate submits that the debt collection charges are approved by way of resolution recorded in minutes of the Body Corporate but are however alleged by the Body Corporate to nevertheless be payable by the respondent pursuant to s 124 of the UTA because they are amount “reasonable costs”.
Pursuant to section 124 UTA the Body Corporate is entitled to recover all “debt collecting costs” by it in collecting unpaid levies as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah 1 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, 2 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.
The assessment of reasonableness of costs in connection with a contractual indemnity for reasonable solicitor and client costs was recently discussed in Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Management Limited 3 and, in the context of s 124 of the UTA, in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd, where the approach taken in Exuberant was adopted and applied. 4
The District Court in Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd summarised the basics of the relevant legal framework as: 5 a) the relevant test is as set out in section 124(2) of the Unit Titles Act – the body corporate is entitled to recover “any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levy”; and b) solicitor and client costs are a category of costs that can be recovered under this provision; and c) the task is to assess the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs that are claimed.
Having set out that framework, the Court reviewed the relevant method to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor and client costs, concluding: 6 ... the essential method is as follows: a) first, ask whether the work that was done was reasonably necessary; b) second, ask whether the amount charged for the reasonably necessary work was reasonable; c) in both instances the NZLS Rules and Rule 9 in particular are prime reference points when assessing reasonableness; d) third, test the analysis against other available reference points.
At para [8], the Court observed: 7 I make the following observations from the discussions on the cases and having regard to the way in which the methodology has been applied in the cases: 1 DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014. 2 [2015] NZCA 185. 3 [2021] NZ HC 3533. 4 CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 5 Body Corporate 45131 v 88 CHI Ltd CIV 2022 – 096 – 000494 [2023] NZDC 9036, at paragraph [5]. 6 At [6], citing Exuberant Ltd v Quinovic Property Management Limited [2021] NZHC 3533 and other authorities. 7 Footnotes from the quote omitted. (a) the exercise the adjudicator or the judge is engaged in is an objective one. The adjudicator or the judge must make a principled assessment of reasonableness against stated criteria; (b) the adjudicator or the judge must do the work required by the methodology, and in particular grapple with the available information on the specific tasks that were undertaken by the lawyers, and the amounts that were charged for them; (c) when doing that, the adjudicator or the judge must test the work and the invoicing against the realities of the legal market that we have, not an idealised or hypothetical standard; (d) the Rule 9 considerations are helpful in providing some structure to this assessment. Time expended is one of these factors but it is not the only factor; (e) if an adjustment to actual solicitor client costs is made, this should be explained with some specificity by identifying tasks that were seen to be unnecessary, or the necessary steps that were seen to have been overcharged in some way. Analysis and application of the law The legal costs
I deal first with the legal costs that are claimed and then with the Body Corporate costs.
Applying the methodology endorsed by the District Court and set out above, I have viewed the correspondence exchanged and the relevant terms of engagement letter from its solicitors, which sets out the range of charge-out rates for those who would be working on the matter. The terms of engagement does not give an estimate of costs, which is perhaps unusual, given the solicitors would have a very good understanding of the sort of fee likely to be charged in this sort of application, at least on an undefended basis.
I am satisfied that the material filed shows that: a) the work undertaken was likely similar to other applications of this nature, but still need to be checked and completed carefully, b) there were no unnecessary attendances. The charges are reasonable in terms of the sorts of other costs orders the tribunal makes in cases of this sort.
Even although the work might be regarded as somewhat formulaic, consistent with similar applications of this nature made before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that all of these steps that were undertaken are required to ensure the information is correct and the relevant material completed correctly with respect to this particular case. Just because the application might be regarded as generic or similar to many other applications does not mean a rigorous approach should not be taken to ensuring that the documentation is completed correctly.
Taking a “standing back assessment”, I am of the view that the legal costs that have been charged would, in this case, be within the standard commercial range for this sort of work.
I note further that the incurring of these costs by a unit holder only arises following letters of demand and follow-ups first by the Body Corporate and then by the Solicitors acting. The unit holder is therefore given every opportunity to pay and advice that they will be liable for costs in the event the arrears are not paid.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the actual solicitor and client costs are, in the circumstances of this case, reasonable costs incurred in collecting the levies and can therefore be recovered from the unit owner. I find that an additional charge of $350 plus GST should be allowed for time spent in preparing for and attending the hearing today. I therefore do not allow the full amount claimed for the hearing today of $805. The Body Corporate costs 23In relation to the Body Corporate charges, I am satisfied, based on the submissions made, that they are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Had payment been made following reminders then it would have avoided the need to instruct solicitors.
Because the Body Corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9058224 — Unit Titles in Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9058224 — Unit Titles in Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

TOTAL

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

TOTAL

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the unit owner liable for interest?

Is the unit owner liable for costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions