Tribunal Orders Respondent to Pay Overdue Levies

__________________________________________________________________________________ 9056084 1

[2025] NZTT 9056084

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU

APPLICANT: [redacted]

RESPONDENT: [redacted] Owner

UNIT ADDRESS: Unit 1, 20 Waterloo Quadrant, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Waterloo Tower

ORDER

[NAME] must immediately pay [NAME] $9,526.19 for overdue levies.

Reasons:

1. [NAME] of Court One lawyers appeared for the [NAME].

2. [NAME] appeared for himself.

3. The [NAME] applies for recovery of unpaid levies.

4. [NAME] has filed his own application claiming $22,400.30 for the [NAME] incorrectly appropriating $5,175.00 he paid, and raising levies without authority, or in violation of an equitable estoppel.

Background

5. The unit is located in Waterloo Quadrant, not far from the Auckland High Court.

6. Regrettably, the building has suffered from serious structural problems, which need repairing. The cost of the repair is massive. The [NAME] and the unit owners have fallen into dispute and litigation. An administrator has had to be appointed.

7. [NAME] has concurrent judicial review/equity proceedings in the High Court against the [NAME], the intituling of which describes the proceeding as being:

__________________________________________________________________________________ 9056084 2

IN THE MATTER Of decisions made by a [NAME] in the misuse, mismanagement and spending of special levies in breach of the Unit Titles Act 2010, special resolutions and in equity

8. In 2022, the [NAME] incurred $55,500.00 in legal fees related to the High Court proceedings. The [NAME] considered it owed the fees and levied the unit owners for them. However, at that time [NAME] disputed that the [NAME] had authority to incur the legal fees. When paying the levy of $5,175.00 for his share of the legal fees he wrote to the [NAME] on 7 October 2022 that he only paid it under protest:

2. The other receipt also shows a payment made of $5,175 stated to be due as a unpaid utility interest/special levy. Unit one also disagrees that this sum is in fact payable, as among other things, it represents the balance alleged to be due following a prior resolution fer costs payable to Court one. However, the amount and expenditure the subject of thar special resolution was exceeded, and the payment was without proper authority. Consistent with that, I have never received any statement from scope showing this amount is allegedly due. Accordingly this amount has nevertheless also been paid without prejudice and under protest.

9. [NAME] electronically paid the $5,175.00 into the [NAME]’s bank account for ordinary levies. However, the [NAME] transferred the $5,175.00 into its bank account for special levies.

10. The next year, on 1 June 2023, the [NAME] held its annual general meeting. It resolved that the operating budget be set at $195,910.00 and be levied to unit owners according to their utility interest in 12 instalments, payable under the proposed budget on the 20th of each month.

11. [NAME]’s annual ordinary levy excluding GST based on his utility interest was $14,684.00, so he had to pay the [NAME] $1,407.22 per month including GST for ordinary levies for the 1 January to 31 December 2023 period.

12. However, [NAME] did not pay the deficit in ordinary levies due for the January to June 2023 months or increase his monthly payments for ordinary levies for the rest of the year. Similarly, [NAME] owes $2,168.03 for levies due 20 October 2024, for a shortfall of $479.20 for the 20 February 2025 levies.

13. As at the date of hearing, [NAME] owes $9,526.19 for overdue levies.

[NAME]’s cross-application be heard together with the claim for ordinary levies?

14. I invited [NAME] to set out a basis for his claim being consolidated with the [NAME]’s claim for ordinary levies. [NAME] addressed the Tribunal for some time. However, I could not discern any logical connection between the claims. They are based on different facts.

15. The [NAME]’s claim is a simple claim for ordinary levies.

16. [NAME]’s claim is a complex claim for incorrect appropriation of his $5,175.00 paid under protest, and wrongly raising special levies for legal costs.

17. Rather than it being convenient to hear the claims together, hearing them together is inconvenient because [NAME] unhelpfully strains to relate incompatible claims. That approach detracts from the clarity of argument for each claim.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 9056084 3

18. Therefore, I have decided to deal with the claims separately.

19. I will issue directions for [NAME]’s claim in a separate decision. The [NAME] submits the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Tribunal will decide the [NAME]’s challenge to its jurisdiction before further steps on that claim.

20. In the rest of this decision, I decide the [NAME]’s levies claim.

[NAME] owe the levies claimed?

21. Unit owners must pay all [NAME] levies.1

22. The body determined the annual levies it required and calculated [NAME]’s share according to his unit’s utility interest.

23. The [NAME] fixed the due date for the levies to be paid, and [NAME] had not paid the levies by the due dates.2

24. The [NAME] has given evidence to prove the amount claimed. [NAME] did not contest the [NAME]’s calculation.

25. [NAME] complained that the [NAME] claimed for unpaid levies incurred after the proceedings were filed. However, he offered no substantive defence to the later levies.

26. The [NAME]’s extension of the claim to include the latest overdue levies is usual practice in the Tribunal. It simply brings the claim up-to-date.

27. The Tribunal orders [NAME] to pay all of the outstanding levies.

Costs

28. Costs are reserved.

[NAME] 23 May 2025

1 Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA), ss 80(1)(f) and 121(1) 2 UTA, s 124(1).

__________________________________________________________________________________ 9056084 4

Please read carefully:

SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS [COMPANY] [PHONE].

MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE [COMPANY] [PHONE].

AFAI E TE MANA’OMIA SE FESOASOANI E UIGA I LENEI MATAUPU FA’AMOLEMOLE IA FA’AFESO’OTAI’I LOA LE OFISA O LE [COMPANY] [PHONE].

Rehearings:

You may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for a rehearing. Such an application must be made within five working days of the order and must be lodged at the Court where the dispute was heard.

The only ground for a rehearing of an application is that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Being unhappy or dissatisfied with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. (See ‘Right of Appeal’ below).

Right of Appeal:

If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, you may appeal to the District Court. You only have 10 working days after the date of the decision to lodge a notice of appeal.

However, you may not appeal to the District Court:

1. Against an interim order made by the Tribunal. 2. Against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the

amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000. 3. Against a work order, or the failure to make a work order, where the value of the work

that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.

There is a $200.00 filing fee payable at the time of filing the appeal.

Enforcement:

Where the Tribunal made an order that needs to be enforced then the party seeking enforcement should contact the Collections Office of the District Court on [PHONE] or go to www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc:

Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt