Let me know what you think about how bodies corporate operate

Over the last 12 months as the MP for Auckland Central I have had people approach me regarding potential issues with bodies corporate.

Nikki Kaye

At this stage I am just asking that you tell me your views on whether the rules around bodies corporate are working or whether you want change. I plan to continue to work with Ministers to see if there is a need for any improvements.

One of the issues that has been raised is whether there is a need for greater accessibility and transparency of information around Bodies Corporate.

My electorate in Auckland Central has huge numbers of apartments. As the growth in apartments continue it is important people have confidence in how bodies corporate operate.

 - Nikki Kaye, MP for Auckland Central


184 signatures

  • signed 2017-05-24 11:57:18 +1200
    UTA should be changed to give more rights to individual owners than BCs. Currently owners pay the money but when disputes arise owners have no rights though they are the legal owners and payers of the units.

    When there is no effect to any other owners there should not be any interference from other owners in that owners decisions.
  • signed 2017-05-09 12:05:19 +1200

    My nightmare experience involves Freemans park BC committee/property manager, BCA and a building surveyor called GBC. The committee acts like a dictator forcing cost to me, without communication AT ALL. The committee is backed up by their lawyer who gets paid from levy but fighting against owners. HOW CORRUPTED! The committee refuses to talk, always pushes owners to lawyers/professionals, which brings owners huge financial pressure. Property manager is very doggy playing among all parties, always avoids responsibilities. BCA is extremely lack of transparency and always trying to manipulate the committee and owners. The surveyor GBC charged $2500 for a rubbish report which is nothing related to my issue at all. BC totally ignored the facts and forced the cost to me by legal force.

    In general, owners are too vulnerable and get bullied by BC all the time. BC/BCA knows too well that owners worry about any issues would possibly effect the property value. BC avoids responsibilities by playing concepts of internal/external building elements, common area, boundary line, etc. Owners hands are tied tightly due to all these rubbish legal boundaries/responsibilities and can do nothing about any issues but be bullied by BC. At the end of day, lawyers/BCA/construction professionals are the biggest winners.

  • signed 2017-03-12 10:18:05 +1300
  • signed 2017-03-09 21:25:35 +1300
    I would like to see you initiate a investigation into retirement villages where residents are facing similar issues with operators not fulfilling all services in right to occupy agreement & ignoring safety issues that affect residents. As a starter I suggest all villages need a annual visit from OSH to talk with residents about any concerns on shortcomings of the operators.
  • signed 2017-03-07 21:08:09 +1300
    We found out recently that our EQC overcap payout of $1.15m has been sitting on deposit under the name of the BC managers company rather than in the name of the body corporate. This was despite assurances from the BC managers that it was in our name.

    My view is the banks treat these Body Corporate managers as having some sort of cart blanche authority to make decisions and sign agreements. The fact they can bank cheques and invest monies in their own name without our consent is unprofessional on their part and careless of the banks to allow it. In our case the bank “just assumed” an agreement existed.

    BC managers should be registered and made to operate an audited trust account and the banks need educated!
  • signed 2017-01-24 10:29:38 +1300
    I am very disappointed by the UTA and Regulations. No real security for BC owners. We are managed by Strata Title who still effectively entrench themselves, have outrageous fees for doing little (holding an AGM is included, but other “normal” duties are charged extra such as sending out meeting notices etc) and take our interest on accounts, charge extra fees hidden in “disbursements” and charge high collection costs for late levies.

    The change I think that needs to be made is that the list of owners contact details should be made available to any other owner, perhaps some control around it like a minimum if 3 owners apply with written reason and it must be supplied – but this is a key area where an owner cannot contact others like them to remove an entrenched chairman/committee/secretary (usually the lot go together).

    On our property a committee member used the list to get proxies to control the meeting and become chairman, previously two committee members used the list to contact owners to buy units cheap and between them gained 5 undervalued units privately including finding a second one for an existing owner who was good friends with one of the two committee members.

    Reading court proceedings, looks like there really is nothing “we” can do, as STA just has to prove that this is signed and that many weeks notice is given etc…

    Very frustrating!

    BTW, good work Nikki Kaye, thanks for your attention and diligence.


    “…if the levy is not paid within seven days a “late payment” charge of

    $110.00 plus GST will be incurred; [ letter # 1]

    …a second debt collection letter is sent requesting payment of the levy plus the $110.00($126.50incl.), and stating that if these amounts are not paid within seven days an additional fee of $220.00 plus

    GST will be charged; [letter # 2]

    …another letter is sent to the defaulting owner seeking payment of the levy plus fees and imposing further debt collecting cost of $220.00 plus GST, if the outstanding amounts are not paid within seven days; [letter # 3]

    if still no payment is made a “Notice of Impending Legal Action” letter is sent to the defaulting owner seeking payment of the levy plus fees, and advising that the debt will be turned over to a solicitor if the

    total outstanding amount is not paid within seven days: (Letter # 4)

    So the total is $632incl after 3-4 weeks! Then they engage lawyers where they should have thier ONLY route of enforcement to be the Tenancy Tribunal (which costs a further $800, bringing the total to $1432).


    - a register of owners details available to other owners

    - regulation over how a management company can charge, they should only charge one yearly per unit charge with no “hidden” fees, like an HP agreement.

    - regulation that any monies on interest held must be paid back to the BC, not goto the management company

    - regulation on maximum charges for late payment and that the management company cannot initially go legal, they must first go through Tenancy Services

    - a more tiered fee schedule for owners using Tenancy Services ($800 and $3000 at present) – as $3000 is a lot to find when also dealing with a secretary “going legal” on you.