What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064544?

The tribunal order states: Po-Min Yang must pay Body Corporate 348047 $21,957.20 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9064544?

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 9064544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Interest, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12224334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064544?

The tribunal order states: Po-Min Yang must pay Body Corporate 348047 $21,957.20 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9064544?

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 9064544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles. Related themes: Interest, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12224334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9064544 — Unit Titles

Order

Po-Min Yang must pay Body Corporate 348047 $21,957.20 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Levies – building and remedial levies$13,725.00 Meth decontamination costs-s126$1,905.55 Loan facility fees 7 September 2023$172.41 Loan facility fees 12 June 2024$469.50 Loan facility fees 1 July 2024$250.00 Interest: Building levies$3,019.36 Costs: up to Hearing$1,656.00 Costs: for preparation and attendance at hearing $759.38 Filing Fee$500.00 Title search fee$20.00 Payment made $520.00 Total award$22,477.20$520.00 Total payable by Respondent to $21,957.20 Applicant

Reasons

This hearing was held on the 4 August 2025.
I apologise to the parties for the delay in this decision. I record that before making this decision I have thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence filed.
Mr Leishman and Ms McCauflogg attended for the body corporate. The respondent did not attend.
On the 2 May 2025 I adjourned the hearing to allow for service on the premises. Since that date the respondent has paid all the operational levies and the interest owed on the operational levies
The remaining claims are whether the respondent is liable for the: a) Special Levy of $11,500 due on the 24 November 2023 (this was an instalment of the special levy raised on the 25 October 2023). b) Additional Special Levy of $862.50 due on the 31 July 2024. c) Additional Special Levy $862.50 due on the 1 November 2024. d) Loan costs of $891.90 relates to the financing costs of the special levy. e) Costs of decontamination $1,905.55. This amount will be considered as a charge to the unit under s126 UTA. f) Interest on unpaid amounts at 10%. g) The Applicant’s costs associated with collecting the unpaid amounts. h) The filing fee of $500.00
The applicant is also seeking payment of an additional building levy due the 31 March 2025 and interest owed on that amount.

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.
A special levy was resolved to be paid at a meeting held on the 25 October 2023 for remediation work to the building. On the 24 November 2023 the levy became due, but the owner did not pay. The respondent has not provided any reason they have not paid the levy.
A further three separate levies for additional matters outside the budgeted amount were required for the building remediation work, these were due on the 31 July 2024 ($862.50), 1 November 2024 ($862.50) and 31 March 2025 ($500.00). I am satisfied that these levies are payable by the owner.
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 amount claimed. The loan facility amounts.
The body corporate committee resolved to borrow funds to finance the special levies. This allowed the body corporate to carry out the necessary work after the date a levy was due, without waiting for a defaulting owner to pay their levies.
Section 127 of the UTA allows the body corporate to recover the reasonable costs incurred from a body corporate owner doing something that they were required to do to effect repairs.
I consider that Mr Yang’s default in not paying the special levies on time was a negligent act, that could have resulted in the repair work not being able to be carried out. I consider the body corporate’s resolution to borrow these funds in order to allow the work to go ahead to be reasonable. The loan facility was an appropriate and practical way of allowing the project to go ahead. The loan facility fees are reasonable, they were an expense incurred in carrying out the repair and therefore Mr Yang is responsible for them.
The amounts are ordered. Methamphetamine decontamination amounts.
Under s126 UTA a unit owner is liable as a debt to the body corporate for any work that was done for the substantial benefit of their unit. The applicant tells me that before remediation work was carried out by its contractors the body corporate had to make the worksite safe, this included having methamphetamine levels in the apartments below the levels required by WorkSafe NZ. The owner’s unit was found to be in excess of the levels and had to be decontaminated. The amount charged was deemed to be the cost of this decontamination work solely attributable to the unit.
I am satisfied that the unit owner is liable for this amount as decontamination work was for the substantial benefit of this unit and it would be unfair for the other owners to bear the cost of this work.

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 proved the amount of interest owing from the due date to the hearing date.

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.
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 9064544 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064544 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the levies claimed?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

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 costs?