How much money was awarded in case 9062784?

S At The Same Time It Gives Notice O…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062784?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062784?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11835886-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9062784?

S At The Same Time It Gives Notice O…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062784?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062784?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11835886-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Aongatete, Katikati, Western Bay of Plent Tenancy Tribunal Case 9062784 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9062784?

The tribunal order states: The body corporate’s resolution dated 20 December 2024 approving the removal

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062784. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s at the same time it gives notice of the EGM, or any time before then. 4. Body Corporate 447921 to pay Vladimir Nichola	$500.00		s at the same time it gives notice of the EGM, or any time before then. 4. Body Corporate 447921 to pay Vladimir Nichola

The body corporate’s resolution dated 20 December 2024 approving the removal and replacement of trees is set aside.

Within 30 days of the date of this order the body corporate must give notice of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to be held solely to consider the issue of whether trees should be removed and replaced.

The body corporate must provide a copy of this decision to all unit owners at the same time it gives notice of the EGM, or any time before then.

Body Corporate 447921 to pay Vladimir Nicholas Sorokin $500.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eustace, the current chair, represented the body corporate.

For some time now the vexed issue of the removal of Ash trees and their replacement with trees of another variety has troubled the body corporate.

The issue went to a vote at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 6 December 2024. It was very narrowly defeated. Then, a postal vote was held, and the resolution passed by a slim majority.

Dissatisfied with the voting process, Mr Sorokin has applied to the Tribunal for relief.

I heard evidence and submissions from the parties today. As well they each provided documentary evidence in support of their respective positions.

I need not record here the reasons for the removal of the trees which have changed over time. The Tribunal’s focus is on fair voting procedure. Discussion

Mr Sorokin wants the issue of tree removal/replacement put to the vote again because he claims procedural anomalies in the way the postal voting was conducted.

At the AGM on 3 December 2024, the resolution that the trees be removed and replaced was defeated (16 votes for, 17 votes against).

The chair at the time (who, together with the 4 committee members in place then, has since resigned) was advised by the body corporate’s manager (Crockers) that there was an irregularity in the way in which the votes were counted.

Acting on advice from Crockers, a postal vote was quickly arranged. The results at the end of the voting period on 20 December 2024 were 19 for the resolution to remove and replace the trees, 16 against. 3 abstained. Had 3 not abstained, the vote might have been split.

Generally, a body corporate is bound by a resolution passed by majority vote; that is the democratic nature how a body corporate operates.

Ms Eustace said in hindsight she had some reservations about the process around the postal vote soon after the AGM resolution was voted on.

Mr Sorokin’s disquiet about the process is acknowledged. This is an important issue for the body corporate and both votes on the issue of tree removal, one against the removal, one for, have been very close.

The issue should be decided once and for all in a more transparent manner with all unit owners aware of the importance of participating in the process.

To achieve that, the Tribunal has set aside the resolution reached by postal vote and has directed that the body corporate arrange an EGM to consider the sole issue of the removal of the Ash trees and their replacement.

The Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) and the Unit Titles Regulations 2011 provide the process for electronic voting so that should facilitate the EGM vote on this issue.

Mrs Sorokin suggested that the 2 ‘factions’ meet so they can discuss their respective positions. That is not something for the Tribunal to direct. But it would be sensible for the unit owners to hear each other’s views either before the meeting, or by circulating a written statement of their positions beforehand. Ms Eustace as chair should be able to facilitate that.

I have directed that a copy of this decision be provided to all the unit owners before the EGM, so they are aware of the Tribunal’s stance on the application and the importance of them participating in the voting process. Hopefully, this vote will decide the matter with finality; the unit owners who are in the minority after the vote will need to accept that as the democratic outcome.

Is a special resolution required?

Mr Sorokin submitted that the Tribunal should direct that a special resolution be required to decide the issue of the removal/replacement of the trees in question.

Special resolutions are reserved for what are usually considered decisions that have a significant impact on unit owners, most often financial decisions, such as borrowing money beyond the annual budget; selling or buying common property; significant alterations to the structure of the development; or where the UTA specifically requires one (for example, granting a lease over common property).

While the decision to remove trees has an emotional impact, and possibly some loss of amenity with (perhaps) a financial impact, it does not reach the threshold to be considered a decision that would require a special resolution to be passed. Result

The application is successful. The resolution reached following the December 2024 postal vote is set aside.

The body corporate must convene an EGM to vote on the issue of tree removal and replacement.

The body corporate must pay Mr Sorokin’s Tribunal filing fee on the successful application – see section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and section 176 UTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9062784. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s at the same time it gives notice of the EGM, or any time before then. 4. Body Corporate 447921 to pay Vladimir Nichola	$500.00		s at the same time it gives notice of the EGM, or any time before then. 4. Body Corporate 447921 to pay Vladimir Nichola