Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 9074684 — Mould in Paraparaumu Beach, Kapiti
Published 25 May 2026 · Application 9074684
Mixed / unclear
- Mould
- Property damage
- Leaks
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Kapiti
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Boys
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- I decline the orders sought by Mr and Mrs Craig.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The relevant background of this matter is: a. Mr and Mrs Craig purchased Apartment 1 in 2017. The apartment is in a three-story development, the Shoreline, with the ground floor consisting of retail and restaurant units, and the first and second floors with residential apartments. Apartment one is on the first floor with three others. The ground floor apartments all share access via an atrium space which is covered by the upper floor. Body Corporate 341329 (the Body Corporate) is the entity established under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) to administer the Shoreline. The Body Corporate is governed by an elected Committee of three owners (the Committee). Rule 28 c. of the Body Corporate’s rules delegates powers to the Committee. b. The fire design of the development includes that Apartment 1 has a F (Fire) rating of 30 minutes and an S (Smoke) rating of 40 minutes. This means that the external building envelope, and shared walls must have the ability to withstand fire for at least 30 minutes and smoke for at least 40 minutes. The design requires that the door from Apartment 1 onto the shared atrium (the Door), has a minimum rating of 45 minutes for both smoke and fire 1 . c. As the Shoreline contains specified systems 2 , the Body Corporate is required to obtain an annual building warrant of fitness (BWoF). The BWoF requires compliance that the fire safety systems of the building meets or exceeds its design parameter as set out in its Building Consent. Building owners are required to retain an Independent Qualified Person (IQP) to report on compliance and certify the building. d. At some stage the Door has become twisted or bent, and there is now a gap said to be 5mm between the top of the Door and the frame. Mr and Mrs Craig say this occurred before they purchased apartment 1. They installed draught stopping strips to address the gap. e. In June 2024, the BWof assessor, an IQP employed by Hawkeye Fire & Building Compliance (2024) Ltd (Hawkeye), completed an assessment. Under the report heading “Remedial Work Required” one of the areas identified was: “The fire door to Unit 1 is bowed and should be replaced. This door will not p[er]form to its current 60-minute fire rating as it does not seal around the door frame.” Despite this, certification was provided, on the understanding that the work would be completed. f. In the 2025 report Hawkeye identified the same issue. Ms Huang, who is a Committee member, advises that she has been told by Hawkeye that the understanding was extended, but it will not be extended for another year if repairs are not carried out. The Committee acting for the Body Corporate intends to replace the door. g. On 30 July 2025, Mr and Mrs Craig wrote to the Committee: While the correspondence from the committee has not stated that we are responsible for such remediation work the tenor of correspondence received to date has not been one of consulting with us to arrange such work. We therefore thought it best to ensure that there is no uncertainty or disagreement about who is responsible for these repairs. I wish to formally request that the body corporate accept responsibility 1 I note that the Door installed is rated at 60 minutes. 2 As I understand it a lift system, safety light system, and fire alarm for the repair and maintenance of this door and the associated framing, lock replacement, painting and all other associated costs. h. In Committee minutes from a meeting held on 5 March 2026, it was recorded that:
- 1 The Committee has advised and believes that the responsibility for completing and funding this work lies with Apartment 1, as per the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA), Version 9th May 2024, Section 126. ...
- 9 There is no budget for this item given the Committee’s belief that the costs are the responsibility of Apartment 1.
- 10 The Committee believes that any Tribunal hearing will result in one of two outcomes. The first that the responsibility lies with Apartment 1. The second possible outcome is that the costs would be shared with Apartment 1 and adjoining owners. This is because the Body Corporate has no ownership boundary with Apartment 1 as that boundary is the common area for Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4.
- 11. Therefore, it is proposed to levy Apartments 1 to 4 for the possible cost of this fire door replacement to allow the work to be done urgently given that the impact of the June 2026 BWOF could affect our insurance policies.
- Mr and Mrs Craig have brought this application, seeking orders preventing the Body Corporate from carrying out the replacement of the door and relating to the levying of the cost. In its submissions to the Tribunal the Body Corporate has argued that liability for the cost of replacing the door should be assigned to Mr and Mrs Craig under s126 or s127 UTA. However no formal cross application has been made. Issues
- The issues to be resolved are: a. What is the nature and cause of the damage? b. Is the door infrastructure or a building element? c. Is the Body Corporate required to replace the door? d. Can the Body Corporate levy the cost against Mr and Mrs Craig? The Damage
- The Committee says that the door is warped or bent, with a 5 mm gap between the door and the top of the doorframe. At the hearing Mr Craig remained unconvinced that the door is bent, suggesting that the frame may be warped due to settlement of the building. However, this differs from the opinion expressed in his letter to the Committee of 30 July 2025, where he requested that the body corporate accept liability for replacing the door.
- The Committee’s position is based on the advice received from Hawkeye, BDS Doors who have quoted for the replacement of the door, and other trades. Mr and Mrs Craig say that laser levels and other measurements of the door should have been taken before the decision was made. However, they have not produced evidence to support that the frame is part of the issue. Mr Craig is critical of the qualifications of those providing this advice and the process by which the decision was reached.
- In Wheeldon v Body Corporate 342525 3 the High Court observed that if a Body Corporate chooses to exercise its responsibilities in a certain way that choice should be respected, even if there are tenable contrary views. This observation is dependent on a body corporate showing that it acted on advice from suitably qualified experts.
- In this case I note that the Body Corporate is acting on the advice of the Hawkeye employee who is also an IQP. To become an IQP a provider must obtain certification from the territorial authority, in this case the Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC), based on expertise and experience. I am satisfied that Hawkeye is suitably qualified to provide the advice it has.
- I note there is some suspicion on the part of the Body Corporate that the damage to the door was caused by Mr and Mrs Craig. If so S127 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) would allow the body corporate to recover the costs from them. However, Mr and Mrs Craig say that the damage to the door had occurred before they purchased apartment one and there is no contrary evidence.
- I am satisfied that on the evidence provided the door is bent, leaving an approximately 5 mm gap between the top of the door and the frame, and that requires replacement.
Infrastructure or a building element?
- S 2 UTA contains the following definitions: building elements includes the external and internal components of any part of a building or land on a unit plan that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building, the exterior aesthetics of the building, or the health and safety of persons who occupy or use the building and including, without limitation, the roof, balconies, decks, cladding systems, foundations systems (including all horizontal slab structures between adjoining units or underneath the lowest level of the building), retaining walls, and any other walls or other features for the support of the building ... infrastructure includes pipes, wires, ducts, conduits, gutters, watercourses, cables, channels, flues, conducting, or transmission equipment necessary for the provision of water, sewerage, 3 Wheeldon v Body Corporate 342525 [2015] NZHC 884 at [74] drainage, stormwater removal, gas, electricity, oil, shelter, protection from fire, security, rubbish collection, air, telephone connection, Internet access, radio reception, television reception, or any other services or utilities to or from a unit or to or from the common property
- As a fire rated door which is included in the fire safety summary design for the development, the Door is both a component of the building which is necessary to the health and safety of persons who occupy or use the building, and infrastructure which provides protection from fire.
Is the Body Corporate required to replace the door?
- S138 (1) UTA: 138 Body corporate duties of repair and maintenance (1) The body corporate must repair and maintain— (d) any building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.
- The question is whether the door is an element or infrastructure that relates to or services more than one unit. The purpose of a fire rated door is to close off an area of a building to create a fire cell. Modern building design incorporates fire engineering which uses the concept of the fire cell to control the spread of fire and smoke. In this case the fire cell is designed to ensure that the walls, windows, and doors of Apartment 1 can resist smoke and fire for at least 40 minutes 4 . This gives the occupants of Apartment 1 protection should a fire break out in another unit or in a common area. The design also gives protection to occupants of other units or common areas should a fire broke out in Apartment 1. Lastly, the building itself is protected as the design allows time for any fire to be extinguished or controlled to mitigate or prevent more widespread damage.
- The Door then is necessary for the system of fire protection for the entire development. I conclude that the Door is a building element and infrastructure which serves more than one unit.
- As such the Body Corporate has a duty to repair and maintain the door, and s138(3) allows it the power to do this work, even should Mr and Mrs Craig disagree. As a result, I decline to make the order sought preventing the Body Corporate from replacing the Door.
Can the Body Corporate levy the cost against Mr and Mrs Craig?
- S138(4) UTA: Any costs incurred by the body corporate that relate to repairs to or maintenance of building elements and infrastructure contained in a principal unit are recoverable by the body corporate from the owner of that unit as a debt due to the body corporate (less any amount already paid) by the person who was the unit owner at the time the expense was incurred or by the person who is the unit owner at the time the proceedings are instituted. 4 45 minutes in the case of the door
- S 126 UTA Recovery of money expended for repairs and other work (1) This section applies where the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, but the repair, work, or act— (a) is substantially for the benefit of 1 unit only; or (b) is substantially for the benefit of some of the units only; or (c) benefits 1 or more of the units substantially more than it benefits the others or other of them. (2) Any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act is recoverable by it as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction (less any amount already paid) in accordance with the following: (a) so far as the repair, work, or act benefits any unit by a distinct and ascertainable amount, the owner at the time when the expense was incurred and the owner at the time when the action is instituted are jointly and severally liable for the debt; or (b) so far as the amount of the debt is not met in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a), it must be apportioned among the units that derive a substantial benefit from the repair, work, or act rateably according to the utility interest of those units, and in the case of each of those units, the owner at the time when the expense was incurred and the owner at the time when the action is instituted are jointly and severally liable for the amount apportioned to that unit.
- Body Corporate Rule 33 c.: Charges for services on behalf must be calculated by benefit (e.g. lift maintenance for apartment owners) (refer s126 of the Act) not unit entitlements.
- The question is whether the replacement of the door is “substantially for the benefit” of Apartment 1, all first-floor units, or the entire development?
- In Body Corporate S73368 v Otway 5 the High Court considered the application of s126, and commented 6 : Section 126 is one of the exceptions to the general principle that disproportionality of benefits must be accepted as a normal incident of ownership of a unit under the Unit Titles Act. The section allows a body corporate which has carried out any repairs or work to recover its expenses in cases of some kinds of benefits to particular units. Where a body corporate has carried out work that benefits only some units, the general body of unit owners has subsidised benefits conferred on only some. Where it applies, the section provides for recovery of the subsidy. The power to recover the subsidy is discretionary, as Ellis J recognised in the case of s 33 of the Unit Titles Act 1972 in Body Corporate 198245 v Wong. The body corporate may recover under s 126 even if the benefiting owners did not ask for the work to be carried out and even if they opposed it. Admittedly it would be difficult to deny that necessary repairs were wanted, but the section is not limited to necessary work. It applies to any repair, work or act by the body corporate.
- The Court went on to consider the approach to assessing the comparative assessment of benefits 7 . 5 Body Corporate S73368 v Otway [2016] NZHC 1070 6 At [24] and [25] 7 At [28], and [30] For an owner to be liable to pay expenses under s 126, the unit must have benefited under s 126(1). That requirement means that there must be some change between the situation before the work was carried out and the situation afterwards. A change which does not result in any improvement does not produce a benefit. In assessing benefits, improvements and disadvantages are aggregated to see whether there is a net benefit. It is necessary to avoid what I call the “location fallacy”. The location fallacy arises when work is carried out near a unit and it is then claimed that by reason of that work having been carried out the unit has benefited, without proving any particular advantage to the unit as a result of the work. ... Section 126(1) provides for benefits when the body corporate repair, work or act: (a) is substantially for the benefit of 1 unit only; or (b) is substantially for the benefit of some of the units only; or (c) benefits 1 or more of the units substantially more than it benefits the others or other of them. In (c) “substantially” is used differently from in (a) and (b). In the first two it helps identify the benefiting unit or units by excluding others. If the benefit is substantially for the benefit of one unit (or some units) only, it is by definition not for the benefit of any other units. In this context, a synonym would be “mainly”. It recognises that there may be benefits to other units, but they are not significant enough to warrant attention. It says nothing about the extent of improvement for the benefiting unit: it need not be extensive. On the other hand, in (c) “substantially” is used to measure the extent of benefits received by some units compared to benefits to others; the paragraph recognises that all units receive some benefit. In this context the benefit needs to be more than minor, when compared to others. Analysis
- The work is necessitated by the need for the development, in its entirety, to be compliant with the fire safety aspects of the building consent. In Otway the fire issue considered by the Court was the heat-resistant coating on structural steel beams. The Court found that this work, while located in a single unit, benefitted all units. In this case the issue differs from the defective building cases such as Otway where there were issues of weathertightness, defective construction, and the market stigma caused by a building being identified as leaking in council records. No stigma arises in the present case. However, there is a regulatory aspect should the building lose its BWoF, as there is an additional cost to reinstate the certification.
- In this case the fire protection aspects of the door provide some benefit to all units, in that the proper functioning of the door will slow or prevent the spread of fire from Apartment 1. However, there is more protective benefit to Apartment 1 as the door slows the spread of fire from another unit or a common area.
- At the hearing the escape path from Apartment 1 and the spacing with the doorway of Apartment 2 was discussed. The Body Corporate Rules refer to 1200mm clear paths. However, for the purposes of the building consent, the Fire Safety Summary at 4.1 refers to 700mm allowable exit widths and actual widths of 810mm. The space between the Door and the entrance to Apartment 2 is approximately 1200 mm so this is not an issue.
- The door does more than prevent the spread of fire. The door will also protect the inhabitants of Apartment 1 from smoke in case of fire from another unit or common area and will prevent the draughts referred to by Mr and Mrs Craig. I discount the draught issue as Mr Craig’s evidence was that the weather strip he had installed had dealt with draughts so that aspect is not an improvement.
- Applying Otway, I conclude that: a. There is a benefit to all units. Therefore s126(1)(a) and (b) do not apply. b. There is a comparatively greater benefit to Apartment 1 than to the other units. To meet the requirement of s126(1)(c) this benefit must be substantially greater, in the sense that the advantage is more than minor when compared with other units. The fire and smoke protection afforded by the replacement of the door for the occupants of Apartment 1 is more than minor when compared to the other units.
- As a result, I decline to make orders preventing the Body Corporate from levying the costs to replace the door against Mr and Mrs Mr and Mrs Craig as the owners of Apartment 1.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0800, s1, s126, s126(1), s127, s138, s138(3), s138(4), s2, s24, s25, s33, s4, s5, s7, s73368
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: mould
- Dispute theme: leaks
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9074684?
The tribunal order states: I decline the orders sought by Mr and Mrs Craig.
How much money was awarded in case 9074684?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 9074684?
The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks, Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9074684?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13620899-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.