An 87-year-old Auckland man has had a last-minute reprieve from his $800,000 home being seized and sold at auction by neighbours to pay a $50,000 debt. 

John Boardman said that had his New Lynn unit’s sale gone through, he would have been left homeless and dying on the street. 

The sale was only averted by rushed negotiations hours before the 3/3172 Great North Rd unit was set to go under the hammer at Barfoot & Thompson’s May 21 auctions. 

Neighbouring unit owner Claire Edgington said forcibly selling Boardman’s home was the last thing she and the other unit owner wanted. 

However, all three units needed to be insured under the same policy and Boardman had for years refused to pay his fees, she said. 

Yet Boardman called the Body Corporation’s establishment and fees a “scam” and “violation of my human rights”. 

“I’m still ensconced in my castle, fortunately,” he said after the sale was averted. 

“Otherwise, I would be dead because there’s no way I’ve got any show in hell of moving to a new place in my situation.” 

Both parties said the saga - that has stretched since 2019 and involved the Tenancy Tribunal and District and High Courts - has left them drained, exhausted and stressed. 

John Boardman said he didn't even know his home was on sale until a friend spotted the advertisment for it. Photo / Jason Dorday 

Boardman said that despite his age he still worked 6am-2pm and had a renter living with him to pay his bills. 

School teacher Edgington said she is a mum of three, working fulltime instead of part-time to pay her family’s mortgages. 

Yet the ongoing stress of covering thousands of dollars of what she said was Boardman’s share of fees had become too much, she said. 

The third unit’s resident is a disabled man, whose brother helps take care of his affairs. 

“We know it probably looks really terrible, like: ‘Gosh, this poor man’s having his house sold’,” Edgington said. 

“But we have done absolutely everything to try and get him to see reason here.” 

How it started 

The dispute stems from a legal requirement that all three units have joint insurance, due to shared firewalls, court documents show. 

Before 2019, the owners had paid their joint insurance fees to the mother of the man in the third unit in an informal way. 

After she passed away, however, the arrangement came apart when pipes at Boardman’s unit sprang a leak. 

Boardman was upset the insurer refused to cover the repairs and decided to look elsewhere, he said. 

“Right, I’m not paying this insurance anymore. I’m gonna get my own one,” he told the Herald about his reaction. 

But Edgington said the damage to Boardman’s pipes was normal wear and tear that no normal insurer would pay out for. 

Inspectors came out and looked at the damage but refused to cover it. 

“There was nothing we could do about it,” she said. 

Boardman claimed to a later Tenancy Tribunal hearing that he started up insurance with a different company and had been paying premiums. 

But Edgington said she didn’t know how he had done that as she and the other unit owner had been advised they legally had to have joint insurance - a finding confirmed by a later District Court judge. 

She said she would prefer to have separate insurance and had called every company she could to see if they would accept individual insurance but was refused. 

John Boardman wants to take out individual insurance but his neighbours say the law requires their three units to have a joint policy. Photo / Jason Dorday 

Paying his own insurer, Boardman then refused to pay fees for the joint insurer. 

Edgington said he stopped taking calls or emails from the other owners. 

She claimed he also sabotaged her efforts to sell her unit after her family bought another home elsewhere, by going into the open homes and scaring off potential buyers by screaming. 

Boardman denied doing that. 

Unable to handle dealing with Boardman, Edgington and the other owner hired a company to run their body corporate, she said. 

Eventually the body corporate took Boardman to the Tenancy Tribunal where he was ordered to pay $14,112.77 in fees and interest. 

He appealed to the District Court, but it took the other unit owners’ side and said he was liable for $28,597.50 in unpaid levies and legal costs. 

The body corporate managers then advised the other owners they could seize Boardman’s home and sell it to recover their debts. 

A High Court order giving them authority to do that took Boardman’s total debt up to about $51,000. 

Boardman said he was unaware of the High Court order or that his home had been seized and put on sale until a friend showed him the Barfoot & Thompson advertisement saying it was due to be sold at auction. 

Edgington countered Boardman’s claims, saying the body corporate and court had repeatedly urged him to seek legal advice about the matter. 

Eventually, a frantic Boardman hired a lawyer, who negotiated to halt the sale in exchange for about $30,000 being paid to Edgington and the other owner. 

Uneasy solution 

Boardman’s children stepped up to cover the $30,000 and avoid the May 21 sale. 

But the 87-year-old remains convinced the body corporate is scamming and stealing from him. 

Edgington said that appears to have left the other owners back where they started. 

John Boardman and his two neighbouring unit owners say the stress of their dispute has left them exhausted. Photo / Jason Dorday 

She expects to be paid the rest of the debt and to have Boardman start paying his share of the insurance and body corporate fees. 

“I don’t want to make someone forcibly have to sell their house,” she said 

“I mean, that’s awful, but I’ve got my family to think about.” 

She said she and the other unit owners were “average normal people”. 

The financial burden had just become too much, she said. 

If Boardman started paying for the joint insurance, then she could sell her home and might even consider walking away from the other debt, she said. 

“Honestly, I would walk away knowing that we could sell the unit... because the stress is just beyond ridiculous,” she said.