Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 9068464 — Cleanliness in Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 4 Sept 2026 · Published 4 Sept 2026 · Application 9068464
- Cleanliness
Order
- Body Corporate 449665 must pay Snug Harbour Limited Baden Turley $2,213.35 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Previous representation costs$255.85 Cleaning$4,350.00 Wheelibin charges $2,892.50 Costs$500.00 Total award$5,105.85$2,892.50 Total payable by Respondent to Applicant $2,213.35
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Body Corporate 449665 must pay Snug Harbour Limited the sum of $1,713.35 immediately, being compensation for cleaning and legal costs, offset by the cost incurred by the Body Corporate for bin wheel removal.
- In addition, Body Corporate 449665 must pay Snug Harbour Limited the sum of $500.00 being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
- All other claims are dismissed.
BACKGROUND
- The premises are unit titled commercial premises, known as the Victoria Park markets in Auckland.
- The applicant in this case is Snug Harbour Limited, represented by its director, Mr Turley. The Applicant owns Principal Unit 23, which is leased to a professional services tenant.
- One of the unusual factors with this complex, is that the public areas, such as walkways, are not common property is would normally be the case in similar complexes, rather those areas are in fact a principal unit, owned by private unit owners, but otherwise available for use by the other unit owners, their tenants, or the general public, by way of a land covenant. This principle unit is known as PU1000B.
- One of the disputes that has been ongoing over the years, relates to rubbish on PU1000B, and in particular a view that not enough has been done to keep the rubbish in check.
- This matter has previously come before the Tribunal in application 9038104. On 8 August 2024, I issued a decision in which I declared that the body corporate had failed to ensure that the body corporate rules in relation to the storage of rubbish had been complied with, as far as PU1000B was concerned, the decision records:
- I return again to the operational rules, which require that “An owner or occupier of a unit must dispose of rubbish hygienically and tidily.” Because this rubbish is on PU1000B, then it would fall to that unit owner to dispose of the rubbish hygienically and tidily, and based on the evidence available, I conclude by a comfortable margin that they have not achieved that.
- Of course the Body Corporate is not the owner of PU1000B, but it does have a general responsibility under section 84 to ensure that the operational rules are complied with. The Body Corporate has not presented evidence which would lead me to conclude that how it has addressed Mr Turley’s complaints about rubbish impacting his unit is reasonable.
- In the circumstances, I make a declaration to the effect that the Body Corporate has failed to meet its obligations to ensure the operational rules are followed, as it relates to rubbish stored on PU1000B, next to unit 23.
- In short, I determined that while the rubbish concerned was on PU1000B, that there was an obligation on the body corporate to ensure that the rubbish was properly managed, because that is what the operational rules require.
- The applicants position is that the body corporate was slow to address the rubbish issues.
- In February 2025, the applicant would re-distribute the rubbish bins around the complex, but found that the body corporate committee, or its service providers, would move the bins back to a location close to unit 23. In order to remedy that situation, the applicant would reposition the bins around the complex, and then remove the wheels from the large bins, so that they could not be moved easily. The applicant indicates that happened around two or three times.
- On 13 February 2025, a letter was sent from the Applicants legal representative (Ms Pidgeon) raising concerns around the continued issues with rubbish around unit 23.
- However, the applicant advises that around 25 February 2025, the body corporate committee found an alternate solution for the rubbish, again re- distributing the bins throughout the park, with some bins remaining outside PU 23, and as far as Mr Turley was concerned, that has resolved the issue. Applicants case
- In written submissions filed in advance of the hearing, Mr Turley summarised the claim as follows:
- This dispute pertains to the storage of Rubbish within Victoria Park Market on PU1000b, outside the unit owned by SHL (PU23).
- The Rubbish situation started in January 2022 and was resolved in Late February 2025.
- As a result, SHL endured over three years of rubbish illegally stored outside its unit. Cockroaches, vermin, bin juice, smells, and unsightliness were regular daily occurrences.
- While the underlying issue has been resolved. Two issues remain: a. The Body Corporate has invoiced SHL for $2,982.50, costs associated with removing bin wheels – which SHL maintains it should not have to pay. b. Compensation costs for the seven months after the Adjudication Order on the 8th August 2024.
- At the hearing, Mr Turley states that following the previous hearing, the Body Corporate was slow to address the rubbish at the premises. Mr Turley states that he initially gave some latitude for the Body Corporate around the rubbish.
- When the Body Corporate did not address the rubbish and the bins, Mr Turley then moved the bins himself, and when someone would move them back by his unit, he then removed the wheels on the bins to make it more difficult to move the bins back around his unit.
- Ultimately, the bins were distributed around the complex which Mr Turley considers resolved the problem for him.
- Mr Turley states that he would have been satisfied with the situation (that is with the distribution of the bins around the complex), but the Body Corporate raised charges against him for moving the bins.
- Mr Turley considers that the Body Corporate has not properly complied with the prior Tribunal order.
- Mr Turley confirmed that he was seeking the following orders (set out at paragraph 30 of his submissions) a. Legal costs previously unclaimed$767.63 b. Tenant cleaning costs$9,338.00 c. Refund of proportion of facilities costs$1,428.43 d. Waste Management service charges$2,552.95
- In addition to the above, interest is also claimed.
- In his concluding submission, Mr Turley advised that his sister has worked as a cleaner at the premises for some 10 years, cleaning the LDE offices and the area outside that.
- Mr Turley considers that the charge for removing the wheels by the bin provider was excessive ($2,500 excluding GST). Further he is entitled to quiet enjoyment of his unit, which includes being free from rubbish around his unit.
- The claim for historic legal costs relates to the cost for legal letter provided by Ms Pidgeon.
- It is disputed that his sister behaved in the matter described by Mr Moore. Respondents case
- The Body Corporate disputes the claim, and considers that the applicant should pay the cost recovery (Rubbish Direct on charge).
- The Body Corporate considers it has worked with Mr Turley to find a resolution of the dispute.
- In terms of the wheel removal, the bin company has charged the Body Corporate for the cost of replacing the wheels on the bin. This cost can be on- charged to the relevant unit owner under section 127 of the UTA.
- In terms of the rubbish collection component in the levies, it is correct that it should be paid for because the applicant has had the benefit of that work.
- Any further work the applicant has undertaken is of its own responsibility and cost.
- The claim should be dismissed. Mr Moore’s evidence
- Mr Moore attended the hearing and gave evidence for the Body Corporate.
- Mr Moore explained that around the last hearing Barfoot & Thompson were removed, and a new committee put in place. Mr Moore considers that the new committee is very functional. Mr Moore states that he has met with Mr Turley, but was not able to agree on a resolution.
- Mr Moore believes that it was Mr Turley’s sister who was removing the wheels on the bins, and that she would remove and throw around rubbish to take photographs of that distributed rubbish.
- Ultimately, in February the bins were relocated and that seems to have resolved the issues. The Milenta restaurant had its own bins.
- The cleaners were requested to undertake more careful and fulsome cleaning around unit 23.
- The Body Corporate consider that it has complied with the Tribunal’s earlier decision around rubbish management.
ANALYSIS
- Again the claim is as follows: a. Legal costs previously unclaimed$767.63 b. Tenant cleaning costs$9,338.00 c. Refund of proportion of facilities costs$1,428.43 d. Waste Management service charges$2,552.95 a. Legal costs previously unclaimed
- The Applicant seeks an order that the Body Corporate pay the sum of $767.63, being legal costs raised from Pidgeon Judd, which had not earlier been claimed. This related to the previous proceeding. An invoice has been provided from Pidgeon Judd dated 17 January 2025 for “Reviewing decision and submitting on costs”, to the sum of $767.63.
- I cannot see any basis to order costs to be paid to the applicant, for its legal advisor in reviewing a subsequent decision, that cost claim is declined. However costs could be ordered, in relation to preparing submissions around the cost matter. In the absence of a particularise split between reviewing the decision, and providing submissions on cost, I will approach the matter that half of the time related to each task. That means, $383.82. In the earlier hearing 2/3 of the actual costs were awarded, and it is fair to take that same approach here. Therefore I order an additional costs award of $255.85. b. Tenant cleaning costs
- The applicant seeks an order of $9,338, being cost invoiced by its tenant, LDE Limited. The invoice is dated 20 March 2025, addressed to Snug Harbour Limited, and for: Costs associated with Rubbish and cleaning outside unit 23 at Victoria Park from August 24 to February 2025
- As I understand matters, those invoice dates would be between the previous Tribunal order which addressed cleaning, from 8 August 2024, until 25 February 2025, when the agreement was made around the bin removal.
- On balance, I accept that the situation with rubbish at the complex was not addressed until 25 February 2025. I cannot see any compelling reason not to accept Mr Turley’s evidence on the point, supported as it was by photographs with the application.
- I accept that the applicants tenant undertook cleaning work outside the unit, that is supported in the Tribunal file. The invoice records that the charge was of seven units of $1,160, I presume that was reference to 7 months, or to put that another way, a charge of $1,160 per month, to undertake the exterior cleaning.
- I am not however persuaded that those charges would be consistent with a fair commercial cleaning rate. I have not been provided with a quotation from a cleaning company, but I cannot see any basis to order an amount above that which would have been incurred, if cleaners had been appointed to do the work.
- I have also taken to consideration that the only areas that it would be reasonable to award cleaning charges for, would be the area immediately next to unit 23. The cleaning would comprise particularly tidying items that had fallen out of the bins, or other waste from the bins. I say that, because the issue with the rubbish appears to have been addressed, simply by relocating the majority of the bins away from unit 23.
- In the absence of evidence from a commercial cleaner, and the light of the limited scope of the work that would be needed, I consider an order at $150 per week would be reasonable, over 29 weeks, that equates to compensation of $4,350.00 and that is ordered. c. Refund of proportion of facilities management costs
- The applicant seeks a refund of a proportion of the facilities and body corporate management charges. In short, the applicant’s position, as I understand it, is that they were not getting an adequate level of support from the body corporate manager over the seven-month period, and they should have a refund for that.
- This claim must be dismissed. Whether or not the applicant considers that the body corporate manager was providing an adequate service, that was the service provided. The body corporate has a contract with the manager to deliver those services, so it is a cost the body corporate has incurred and would be liable for.
- In the event a body corporate breaches an obligation to a unit owner, then the unit owner has a right to pursue various remedies including compensation for that breach. That is precisely what has occurred above. Compensation has been awarded, if I were to also have the facilities and management costs reimbursed proportionally, then the applicant would be receiving a double order.
- This application is dismissed. d. Waste management services charges
- The applicant also seeks a proportional reimbursement of waste management cost, to the sum of $2,552.95. For the same reason set out above, under the facilities management cost, this application is dismissed. e. Declaration of non liability for bin wheelie bin charges
- There is no dispute that the applicant removed the wheels from rubbish bins when they were relocated, in order to make it difficult for those bins to be pushed back to the original location by unit 23.
- Rubbish Direct has invoiced the body corporate the sum of $2,875 on the basis that it needed to replace six x 660 litre bins due to missing wheels, and one x 1,100 litre bin due to missing wheels.
- The applicants position is that the charge was excessive, I am not sure about that. I have no reason to believe that the charges raised were not reasonable in the circumstances, certainly that is the invoiced amount.
- The applicant was very unwise to remove the wheels. The bins were the property of a third-party. It is not surprising that the bin company has invoiced the body corporate for the work involved with addressing the situation, and to that extent the charges should have been foreseeable.
- I can see no valid reason why the applicant should not be liable for these costs. The application for a declaration of non-liability is declined
CONCLUSION
- For the reason set out above, I have determined that the body corporate must pay the applicant the sum of $4,350.00 for cleaning, and $255.85 for costs, that totals $4,605.85. However, there is an established debt in relation to the bin wheel removal, to the sum of $2,892.50, which means that I find the body corporate must reimburse the applicant the sum of $1,713.35.
- In addition, the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding, being $500, must be paid to the applicant.
Property management
- SNUG HARBOUR LIMITED (applicant)
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.