The company behind a half-finished apartment block in Auckland's Epsom is in the process of being removed from the Companies Register – while a neighbour is still waiting to be paid $30,000.
By Melanie Earley of RNZ
Work on the Epsom Central Apartments Project halted six years ago, after Auckland Council found it had not complied with building consent.
The original partnership, Epsom Central Apartments LP, was put into receivership in 2022, and purchased by Xiao Liu – the director at the time of a company named Reeheng Limited – in September 2023.
In September 2024, RNZ spoke to community members and business owners who described the building as a "blight on the Epsom landscape", which at one point attracted rats and squatters.
Forest Tan owns Just Laptops next door and was awarded $30,000 by the Disputes Tribunal after ageing concrete collapsed and blocked his driveway. But he's worried he may never see this money if the company is removed.
According to the Companies Register, Reeheng Ltd was overdue in filing an annual return and the Registrar of Companies had initiated action to remove it.
Anyone who wanted to reject the removal was given a deadline of February 18 to do so – which had now passed.
Tan said he worried once the company was removed from the register, the money owing to him would become unenforceable.
"I haven't received compensation from Reeheng Ltd despite the tribunal order. It's deeply concerning to me to see this."
Tan said he had been in touch with debt collection agency Baycorp, who indicated to him if the company was removed from the register there wouldn't be much that could be done.
In the last few months Tan demolished his business which sat directly beside the apartment block and had plans to rebuild.
If Reeheng Ltd ceased to exist he worried what the future of the building would be and how much longer it would stay in its current state.
According to the Treasury website, a property would go to the Crown if a company was removed from the register.
If someone wanted to deal with the property the company could be restored or an application could be made to the High Court for an order giving the property to an applicant.
MBIE's acting national manager of business registries Vanessa Cook said if a company was removed from the register it effectively ceased to legally exist.
It did not however, extinguish any debts or obligations owed by the company.
She said a creditor could apply to have the company restored on the register and if it had been, enforcement could continue. This was the main pathway for any money owed.
Not filing annual returns was the most common ground for removal, she said.
"The registrar cannot comment on whether companies purposefully seek to remove themselves from the register to avoid obligations. However, failing to meet company obligations is an offence, and removal is not a mechanism to avoid paying debts."
In Tan's case, Cook said if a tribunal order had not been complied with the next steps for enforcement sat with the Ministry of Justice.
Tan had submitted an objection to the removal of the company from the register.
Reeheng Ltd were approached by RNZ for comment. The company's lawyers said they had not received instructions from the company for several months.
SHARE ME