How much money was awarded in case 9065944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12232796-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9065944?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9065944?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9065944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12232796-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

New Lynn, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9065944 — Unit Titles

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9065944?

The tribunal order states: Upon Body Corporate 310258 giving the unit owners, Meiqing Xu and Changhua Xu or

Order

Upon Body Corporate 310258 giving the unit owners, Meiqing Xu and Changhua Xu or their agent, Hongwen Xu at least 24 hours’ notice in writing that the body corporate’s contractors will enter the unit for the purposes of appraising whether the unit needs a heat detector as outlined in First Fire Systems Limited’s survey dated 14 March 2025, and (if the unit is appraised as needing a heat detector or other fire detection device) installing a heat detector or other fire detection device: the unit owners and their agent must permit the body corporate’s contractors to enter the unit for those purposes, during the time or times stated on the notice, which times must be at reasonable hours.

Reasons

Jonathon Wood, counsel of Court One Lawyers attended the hearing for the body corporate.
Hongwen Xu, the unit owners’ sister, attended for the unit owners.
The body corporate seeks an order that the unit owners permit the body corporate’s contractors to enter the premises to reappraise the unit’s need for a heat detector and to install a heat detector if required.
Under s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA), the body corporate must “repair and maintain...any infrastructure”.
“Infrastructure” is defined under the UTA as including “protection from fire”.
Under s 138(3) of the UTA the “body corporate may access at all reasonable hours any unit to enable it to carry out repairs and maintenance under this section”.
The development’s buildings must hold a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) every year under s 108 of the Building Act 2004. The BWOF sets standards that the buildings must comply with. The BWOF standards are consistently raised each year. The buildings must be assessed each year by an independently qualified person for compliance. To obtain a BWOF, the building must attain the applicable standards. The body corporate’s duty to repair and maintain the building requires it to ensure the building meets the BWOF standards.
The body corporate’s independently qualified person, First Fire Systems Limited, surveyed the unit on 14 March 2025 and found that the unit requires a heat detector in the vicinity of the kitchen for the building to comply with the current BWOF standard.
The Xus dispute Fire System’s findings. However, they are not experts and have not provided any expert evidence. Ms Xu submits other units have not been assessed as requiring heat detectors, but it is unexceptional that another unit would be assessed as not needing a heat detector based on the different physical attributes of the units and their current fire safety features. That Ms Xu cannot distinguish a difference in the units’ need for heat detectors is not surprising because she is not trained or qualified to know.
Ms Xu is concerned that First Fire has confused the unit’s set out with how it was partitioned in 2022. However, there is no evidence of that. First Fire’s photographs of the kitchen area date from its 2025 survey, so that theory is improbable.
Ms Xu strongly believes that the heat detector is not required. However, the evidence clearly demonstrates it is.
The body corporate is duty-bound to access the unit and install the heat detector as the evidence stands. However, it may assist Ms Xu that Mr Wood suggests that Fire First or another IQP attend the premises at the same time as the installation technician to double-check whether installation is necessary.
The law is clear. The evidence is cogent. The body corporate’s application must be granted.
The Tribunal makes an order as sought.
The parties are to try to agree costs between themselves. They may return to the Tribunal if they cannot agree.

Order

Reasons

Jonathon Wood, counsel of Court One Lawyers attended the hearing for the body corporate.
Hongwen Xu, the unit owners’ sister, attended for the unit owners.
The body corporate seeks an order that the unit owners permit the body corporate’s contractors to enter the premises to reappraise the unit’s need for a heat detector and to install a heat detector if required.
Under s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA), the body corporate must “repair and maintain...any infrastructure”.
“Infrastructure” is defined under the UTA as including “protection from fire”.
Under s 138(3) of the UTA the “body corporate may access at all reasonable hours any unit to enable it to carry out repairs and maintenance under this section”.
The development’s buildings must hold a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) every year under s 108 of the Building Act 2004. The BWOF sets standards that the buildings must comply with. The BWOF standards are consistently raised each year. The buildings must be assessed each year by an independently qualified person for compliance. To obtain a BWOF, the building must attain the applicable standards. The body corporate’s duty to repair and maintain the building requires it to ensure the building meets the BWOF standards.
The body corporate’s independently qualified person, First Fire Systems Limited, surveyed the unit on 14 March 2025 and found that the unit requires a heat detector in the vicinity of the kitchen for the building to comply with the current BWOF standard.
The Xus dispute Fire System’s findings. However, they are not experts and have not provided any expert evidence. Ms Xu submits other units have not been assessed as requiring heat detectors, but it is unexceptional that another unit would be assessed as not needing a heat detector based on the different physical attributes of the units and their current fire safety features. That Ms Xu cannot distinguish a difference in the units’ need for heat detectors is not surprising because she is not trained or qualified to know.
Ms Xu is concerned that First Fire has confused the unit’s set out with how it was partitioned in 2022. However, there is no evidence of that. First Fire’s photographs of the kitchen area date from its 2025 survey, so that theory is improbable.
Ms Xu strongly believes that the heat detector is not required. However, the evidence clearly demonstrates it is.
The body corporate is duty-bound to access the unit and install the heat detector as the evidence stands. However, it may assist Ms Xu that Mr Wood suggests that Fire First or another IQP attend the premises at the same time as the installation technician to double-check whether installation is necessary.
The law is clear. The evidence is cogent. The body corporate’s application must be granted.
The Tribunal makes an order as sought.
The parties are to try to agree costs between themselves. They may return to the Tribunal if they cannot agree.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065944 — Unit Titles in New Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9065944 — Unit Titles in New Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions