A 12-unit building in Remuera had been self-managing for nine years. The committee was efficient, the building was well-maintained, the finances were in good shape, and the owners generally got along. They had never seen the need to engage a professional manager and had saved a meaningful amount in management fees as a result. Then, in late 2024, their solicitor mentioned in passing that changes in force since May 2023 required large developments to engage a body corporate manager. The committee had been non-compliant for well over a year.
The requirement is this: any body corporate with 10 or more principal units must engage a body corporate manager unless the owners vote by special resolution to opt out. 'Principal units' means the primary units in the development — apartments, offices, shops — not accessory units like car parks or storage spaces. If your building has 10 or more of those, you need a manager — or a formal, documented decision not to have one.
Why was this introduced? The rationale in the legislative record is that buildings of this size have complex enough governance and financial management requirements that self-management creates meaningful risks — both for the owners in that building and for the broader unit title market. Buildings that are self-managed poorly tend to produce deferred maintenance, inadequate insurance, and poorly kept records that create problems at sale. A mandatory management requirement pushes those buildings toward a professional standard.
The opt-out is real and available. If owners pass a special resolution choosing not to engage a manager — at least 75% of the votes cast at a properly convened general meeting — the building can continue to self-manage. But it has to be an actual, recorded resolution. If the opt-out fails, or is never put to a vote at all, the mandatory requirement applies.
What about buildings that have been self-managing above the threshold? The honest answer is that applying the requirement to every situation isn't perfectly clear, and getting specific legal advice based on your building's circumstances is worth doing. The practical expectation is simple enough, though: either engage a manager or put the opt-out resolution to owners — properly.
For the Remuera building, the committee called an extraordinary general meeting within six weeks of realising the situation. They put the opt-out resolution to owners and explained the options clearly. All 12 owners voted: 8 in favour of opting out, 4 against. That is 67% — short of the 75% of votes cast that a special resolution needs. They engaged a manager.
The outcome, a year on: three of the committee members who had voted against engaging a manager had changed their view. The manager had taken over meeting preparation, financial reporting, and contractor management. The committee chair said the work involved in self-managing had been genuinely significant and invisible — they had not appreciated how much time it was taking until they didn't have to do it anymore.
For buildings below the 10-unit threshold: the mandatory requirement doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean professional management isn't worth considering. Small buildings with engaged, capable owners can self-manage well. Small buildings where the one person doing all the work moves on, or retires, or just burns out, can find themselves in real difficulty. Professional management at any size tends to produce more consistent outcomes.
Quarter is the new body corporate — transparent, owner-first, and built for the way people actually live together. See how it works at quarter.nz.