VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Body Corporate Can Recover Cleaning Costs from Unit Owner

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal at North Shore decided that a unit owner must pay $125 towards the body corporate's cleaning expenses after the unit owner's property manager soiled the common property. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of maintaining the cleanliness of common areas and the body corporate's right to recover reasonable expenses.

⚖️ Legal holding

A unit owner must pay reasonable expenses incurred by the body corporate to clean common areas soiled by the unit owner or their agents.

Topics

common property maintenanceunit owner responsibilities

Provisions

Unit Titles Act 2010, s 127Unit Titles Act 2010, s 138(1)(a)

📖 What the law says

Unit Titles Act 2010 s.127

This section allows a body corporate to recover expenses if it has to do repairs or work because a unit owner, or someone connected to them like a tenant or invitee, acted wilfully or negligently, or broke the rules. The body corporate can get back the cost of the work plus any reasonable collection costs.

Unit Titles Act 2010 s.138

This section states that a body corporate is responsible for managing, maintaining, and keeping the common property and shared assets in good repair. It also requires the body corporate to maintain, repair, or renew parts of the building and infrastructure that serve more than one unit.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ruled that the unit owner must pay $125 towards the body corporate's cleaning expenses.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal at North Shore ruled that a unit owner must pay $125 towards the body corporate's cleaning expenses after the unit owner's property manager soiled the common property. The Tribunal emphasised the unit owner's responsibility to maintain the cleanliness of common areas and the body corporate's right to recover reasonable expenses.

📚 Full judgment Official document

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____9077864 1

[2026] NZTT 9077864

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT NORTH SHORE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌKAHUKURA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

RESPONDENT: [redacted] [NAME]

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] $125.00 towards

[COMPANY]’ invoice number 2287490

dated 2 February 2026.

2. [NAME] is not liable to pay any of the balance of the just

mentioned invoice.

REASONS:

1. [NAME] attended the hearing for himself at the North Shore District Court.

2. [NAME], the [NAME]’s chairperson attended for the [NAME] by telephone.

Background

3. The unit owner’s property manager had tramped in mud onto the complex’s amin

lobby, lift and a hallway’s carpet.

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____9077864 2

4. The [NAME]’s building manager invoiced the [NAME]’s manager,

[NAME], $250.00 for the carpet cleaning required to remove the mud.

5. [NAME] is concerned he was treated differentially from other unit owners and

that his property manager was not given the opportunity to carry out the cleaning.

Discussion and decision

6. Rule 7.1.1 of the [NAME] rules provides among other things that owners:

must not leave rubbish, recycling material, dirt or other material on the Common Property except in the Rubbish Storage Area

7. The rule could be more explicit (for example, the rule might say “must not soil or

dirty the Common Property”), but it is virtually self-evident that unit owners, their

agents, and their tenants must not soil or dirty the common area. Even if there

were no written rule, it would be implied.

8. Body corporates must maintain the common property.1 That duty extends to

keeping the common property clean. The [NAME] can recover any

reasonable expense it incurs to remedy any negligent act or omission of the unit

owner to fulfil its duties.2

9. There appears to have been a communication breakdown between [NAME] and

[NAME] which underlies this application.

10. The unit owner’s property manager’s soiling of the carpet was a negligent act.

The [NAME] incurred a reasonable expense of $250.00 to remedy the

uncleanliness.

11. During the hearing [NAME] offered to reduce the amount that [NAME] had to

pay to $125.00, which [NAME] accepted.

12. The Tribunal orders accordingly.

13. [NAME] would be well within his rights to seek reimbursement from his property

manager.

14. There were indications that [NAME] and [NAME] can put this matter behind

then and communicate more constructively.

1 Unit Titles Act 2010 s 138(1)(a). 2 Unit Titles Act 2010 s 127.

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____9077864 3

15. The Tribunal wishes the parties well in that regard.

R Kee 16 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 9077864 4

Please read carefully:

SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS [COMPANY] [PHONE].

MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE [COMPANY] [PHONE].

AFAI E TE MANA’OMIA SE FESOASOANI E UIGA I LENEI MATAUPU FA’AMOLEMOLE IA FA’AFESO’OTAI’I LOA LE OFISA O LE [COMPANY] [PHONE].

Rehearings:

You may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for a rehearing. Such an application must be made within five working days of the order and must be lodged at the Court where the dispute was heard.

The only ground for a rehearing of an application is that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Being unhappy or dissatisfied with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. (See ‘Right of Appeal’ below).

Right of Appeal:

If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, you may appeal to the District Court. You only have 10 working days after the date of the decision to lodge a notice of appeal.

However, you may not appeal to the District Court:

1. Against an interim order made by the Tribunal. 2. Against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the

amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000. 3. Against a work order, or the failure to make a work order, where the value of the work

that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.

There is a $200.00 filing fee payable at the time of filing the appeal.

Enforcement:

Where the Tribunal made an order that needs to be enforced then the party seeking enforcement should contact the Collections Office of the District Court on [PHONE] or go to www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc:

Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The unit owner must pay reasonable expenses for cleaning common areas soiled by their agent.
  • The body corporate incurred a reasonable expense of $250.00 to clean the soiled carpet.
  • The unit owner agreed to pay $125.00 towards the cleaning cost during the hearing.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The unit owner argued they were treated differently from other unit owners without merit.
  • The unit owner claimed their property manager should have been given the chance to clean the soiled areas.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the unit owner must pay $125 towards the body corporate's cleaning expenses.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the unit owner should pay for the cleaning of common property soiled by the unit owner's property manager.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the unit owner must pay $125 towards the cleaning expenses because the unit owner's property manager soiled the common property, and the body corporate had the right to recover these costs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Unit Titles Act 2010, sections 127 and 138(1)(a) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the unit owner's property manager soiled the common property, and the body corporate had the right to recover reasonable expenses for cleaning.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the body corporate, as the unit owner was ordered to pay $125 towards the cleaning expenses.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, the body corporate can recover reasonable expenses for cleaning common property soiled by a unit owner or their agents.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Body Corporate Can Recover Cleaning Costs | Tenancy Tribunal | VadeLab