Homeowner whose sink was ruined by scratch wins case against cleaner in Disputes Tribunal

A cleaning company boss alleged a homeowner's claim in the Disputes Tribunal was fraudulent and that she had made the same claim against another cleaner, but his evidence was weak. Photo / 123rf

A cleaning company whose worker scratched a homeowner’s copper sink beyond repair tried to counter-sue the woman for $10,000 when she took a claim against it.

Instead, the person in charge of the cleaning service, who is not identified in the Disputes Tribunal decision released in July, was ordered to pay the homeowner’s insurer $1277 to replace the sink, and $400 to the woman to cover her excess.

The drama began in July 2021 when the cleaning company contacted the homeowner in response to an online ad seeking a cleaner.

The homeowner, identified as the applicant in the anonymised decision, received a “very convoluted email about pricing” that culminated in a statement which said the cleaning fee would be more than $90 but less than $100.

A trial clean which was expected to take between two and three hours went ahead in September that year by two of the company’s cleaning staff.

During the clean, one of the staff members went to the homeowner and reported she had accidentally scratched the copper sink in the bathroom.

The homeowner told the tribunal the staff member was upset and the homeowner had to calm her.

According to the decision, the cleaner immediately called her boss to report the incident and was queried as to the type of cleaning pad she used.

The homeowner said she told the cleaner not to worry and that she would deal with the boss directly.

After the rest of the cleaning was completed, the homeowner was otherwise satisfied with the work.

The following day she received an invoice for $315, but no reply to her attempt to contact the boss about the damage.

When the homeowner emailed back protesting the amount and raising the damage, the boss replied explaining that first cleans take longer.

The woman wrote back and stated she was given a price in writing and was not advised she would be charged by the hour.

The man replied that he was very busy but would look into it and get back to her, the decision said.

The cleaning company boss provided evidence of how to refinish a stainless steel sink, but the tribunal said it was not relevant. Photo / 123rf

That night, the boss replied with a long email about how much more work was involved in a first clean, with several hours potentially required to descale bathrooms, and of issues with unmaintained homes, ACC and sick pay for staff, public liability insurance costs, travel costs and time, traffic delays and more.

But tribunal referee Laura Mueller said all of these factors were known when the boss gave the homeowner the cleaning cost and he had not requested or required a home inspection before providing the price.

The cleaning company owner then proceeded to send the homeowner a series of invoices where the amount due increased significantly each time, the decision said.

Through all this, the man failed to inspect the damage to the sink and claimed the cleaner was upset that day because she observed scratches in the sink, not because she caused them.

He claimed his cleaner couldn’t see the bottom of the sink due to “heavy layers of soap and toothpaste residue” and the cleaner only used a cleaning cloth for glass, which could not cause scratches.

“The respondent’s responses have become increasingly threatening, irrational and vitriolic,” Mueller wrote.

The man filed a late counterclaim against the homeowner for $10,000 for unspecified damages.

The homeowner made an insurance claim and an assessor investigated and determined the sink could not be repaired.

A replacement quote of $1277 was accepted by the insurer, but the homeowner had to pay an excess of $400 which she sought to recover through the Disputes Tribunal.

The cleaning boss declined to make a claim with his insurer and argued the sink could have been repaired and refinished. However, the sink supplier stated it could not be repaired.

The boss tried telling the tribunal the woman’s claim was fraudulent, alleging she had made the same claim against a prior cleaner the year before.

“The respondent’s evidence of this is a statement from the alleged prior cleaner, dated June 16, 2022,” Mueller wrote.

She said the statement did not provide the date of the cleaning or any specifics of what occurred except that it involved a sink and scratches.

“It is noted that this statement is in the same font, style and language of all of the respondent’s submissions, including the written statement purportedly from the cleaner in this case.”

In determining the outcome, Mueller found it highly unlikely the cleaner would have been so upset if she had merely noticed scratches on the four-month-old sink, rather than caused them herself.

Photos of the sink did not support the description of the state the boss claimed it was in, and it was also highly unlikely the cleaner would attempt to clean a sink in such condition with only a soft cloth for cleaning glass.

“It is more likely that the cleaner attempted to scour the sink as one might a porcelain or stainless steel sink, but the softer copper sink was damaged.”

Mueller found the homeowner’s version of events more likely than the respondent’s and ordered him to pay her insurer the replacement cost of $1277, and pay the woman $400 for her excess.

She ordered the homeowner pay $95 for the clean because it fit within the original price bracket provided. The balance of the counterclaim was struck out.

Natalie Akoorie is the Open Justice deputy editor, based in Waikato and covering crime and justice nationally. Natalie first joined the Herald in 2011 and has been a journalist in New Zealand and overseas for 27 years, recently covering health, social issues, local government, and the regions.