It is going to be expensive; the High Court ordered appointment of an administrator for a four-unit dysfunctional residential body corporate on Hankey Street in Wellington inner city suburb Mt Cook. Owners cannot agree on maintenance and repair issues or who should chair their body corporate. They now face the conundrum of deciding who should be appointed administrator.
With an exterior of painted cedar and plaster, the Hankey Road apartments in question were built in the 1980s. The High Court was told there has been no change in apartment ownership for some two decades, with attitudes between owners hardening for at least the last five years. Disputes over what parts of the building are a common cost for maintenance and what are an individual owner’s cost have led to multiple Tenancy Tribunal applications. The Tribunal has been at pains to point out that the Tribunal is not the appropriate venue for resolving what are governance disputes between members. There has been no functioning body corporate committee.
A major point of difference is the status of a retaining wall supporting one boundary of the apartments; a retaining wall which protects footpath access to another set of apartments on the downhill side. Downhill neighbours claim the retaining wall is at risk of collapse. This claim is complicated firstly by a dispute between uphill and downhill neighbours as to who is responsible for maintaining the wall and second by division between Hankey Street owners on the uphill side as to whether there is any risk of collapse at all. Current repair estimates stand at $100,000.
A survey identified parts of the wall are on the boundary, other parts straddle the boundary. An engineering report suggested soil movement may have nudged part of the retaining wall across the boundary line. A meeting of both uphill and downhill neighbours intended to negotiate possible repairs proved acrimonious.
A subsequent Tenancy Tribunal ruling stated the uphill body corporate was responsible for repairing the boundary retaining wall. It is part of the structure holding up all four uphill apartments. The four individual uphill owners could not agree between themselves as to what should happen, or even whether repair was necessary. Mediation proved unsuccessful. They asked the High Court to appoint a Unit Titles Act administrator.
Justice Grice ruled in favour of an administrator being appointed given the dysfunctional body corporate, stating the owners had to come back to court with an agreed name of the person willing to act as administrator with scope of the appointment and level of fees agreed. It is common practice when seeking a court-appointed administrator to have a nominee sorted out before the court hearing.
Parkinson v. Body Corporate 62124 – High Court (1.08.23)
23.128