What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9077864?

The tribunal order states: Steven Ho Chung Yang must pay Body Corporate 533375 $125.00 towards

How much money was awarded in case 9077864?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9077864?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9077864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13755621-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9077864?

The tribunal order states: Steven Ho Chung Yang must pay Body Corporate 533375 $125.00 towards

How much money was awarded in case 9077864?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9077864?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9077864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13755621-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Takapuna, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9077864 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Mr Yang attended the hearing for himself at the North Shore District Court.

Matthew Newman, the body corporate’s chairperson attended for the body corporate by telephone. Background

The unit owner’s property manager had tramped in mud onto the complex’s amin lobby, lift and a hallway’s carpet. _____90778642

The body corporate’s building manager invoiced the body corporate’s manager, Strata Titles, $250.00 for the carpet cleaning required to remove the mud.

Mr Yang 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

Rule 7.1.1 of the body corporate 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

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.

Body corporates must maintain the common property. 1 That duty extends to keeping the common property clean. The body corporate can recover any reasonable expense it incurs to remedy any negligent act or omission of the unit owner to fulfil its duties. 2

There appears to have been a communication breakdown between Mr Yang and Mr Newman which underlies this application.

The unit owner’s property manager’s soiling of the carpet was a negligent act. The body corporate incurred a reasonable expense of $250.00 to remedy the uncleanliness.

During the hearing Mr Newman offered to reduce the amount that Mr Yang had to pay to $125.00, which Mr Yang accepted.

The Tribunal orders accordingly.

Mr Yang would be well within his rights to seek reimbursement from his property manager.

There were indications that Mr Yang and Mr Newman 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. _____90778643

The Tribunal wishes the parties well in that regard.

Reasons