Unconsented outside bedrooms are not availble to rent.

[Viking]

It also included $5550 as an adjustment to the total rent Steven paid for the house as the rumpus area was not legally consented as sleeping quarters.
Therefore, Tam said Steven should only have paid for a three-bedroom property, not a five-bedroom property.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/96143521/you-rented-it-you-live-in-it-property-manager-claimed-family-of-four-rented-floodprone-bedrooms-in-garage-as-is

Property manager claims family of four rented flood-prone bedrooms in garage 'as is'

An Auckland property manager rented out an unsafe, flood-prone garage as two separate bedrooms then claimed the tenant rented it 'as is'.
The property, in the south Auckland suburb of Manurewa, flooded three times in a year, leading to a legal battle and a $7500 pay-out.
Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Jack Tam delivered a judgment on the case in June.

[Lighthouse]

This has been a popular topic lately.
Adjudicator J Robertshawe explains the law in this recent Lower Hutt case.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/121291394.pdf

This is one has an interesting twist. I now know why the upstairs windows were boarded up for some time.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/120559633.pdf

Container houses seem to be popular but this one was not legal

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/115783074.pdf

[Viking]

Interesting read. Lots of conversions where consents are obtained. Could be painful if some complains.
Now it raises the questions about those portable buildings that get rented on a property. In general it is argued that they do not need consents but where is the line?

[Davo36]

Are the days of converting garages etc. over?

[John the builder]

Are the days of converting garages etc. over?

There is no law that stops a garage conversion to bedrooms

clearly in the first instance that flooding garage was insanitary but that had nothing to do with approvals and everything to do with the responsibility fro owners to have sanitary building whether approved or not. The issue is not the approval but the flooding that made even an approved building insanitary.

I have a barrister who is determined to find a client to turn this nonsence on its head. The TT is mistinterpreting Anderson decision and is somply wrong.

Robertshaw may be the worst at this.....
he states;

5. It is accepted by both parties that the flat cannot lawfully be used as a residential tenancy. In the case of Anderson v FM Custodians Ltd[2013] 243, the High Court made a finding that premises that cannot be lawfully be used as residential tenancies are excluded from the definition of "residential premises" under the Act. The Court considered that such tenancies are prohibited transactions for which orders can only be made under of the Act.

here lies the problem ....this is bullshit but if the LL agrees then he is admitting wrong and giving the TT the grounds but this needs to be challenged!

This is bad law and unsafe decsions that need to be nipped in the bud

If anyone has a case pending (or knows of one)please contact me by pm

[sidinz]

It also included $5550 as an adjustment to the total rent Steven paid for the house as the rumpus area was not legally consented as sleeping quarters.
Therefore, Tam said Steven should only have paid for a three-bedroom property, not a five-bedroom property.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/96143521/you-rented-it-you-live-in-it-property-manager-claimed-family-of-four-rented-floodprone-bedrooms-in-garage-as-is

Property manager claims family of four rented flood-prone bedrooms in garage 'as is'


An Auckland property manager rented out an unsafe, flood-prone garage as two separate bedrooms then claimed the tenant rented it 'as is'.
The property, in the south Auckland suburb of Manurewa, flooded three times in a year, leading to a legal battle and a $7500 pay-out.
Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Jack Tam delivered a judgment on the case in June.

Something strange there.......they weren't using the rooms as bedrooms.
So why the payout for two 'bedrooms' that weren't? Also, looks like a purpose-built garage+sleepout to me. I get the payout for a flooding area that ruined their stuff, but why reduce the rent based on number of bedrooms?

[sidinz]

Container houses seem to be popular but this one was not legal
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search.../115783074.pdf

This one is ouchy. After being made aware that the house was non-compliant, the tenant chose to remain living there for another seven weeks, then got all her rent back. Wow.

[Nzdan]

This one is ouchy. After being made aware that the house was non-compliant, the tenant chose to remain living there for another seven weeks, then got all her rent back. Wow.

Well, yeah. When you have work commitments it's not exactly easy to just up sticks and move. Seven weeks is only 1 week longer than your "minimum" notice to vacate on a periodic tenancy.

But you have to wonder why anyone would pay $480 a week to rent out a shipping container. Certainly would have been a very good ROI, $480 a week on what a $50k building on a free bit of land presumably next door to the landlord.

[John the builder]

This one is ouchy. After being made aware that the house was non-compliant, the tenant chose to remain living there for another seven weeks, then got all her rent back. Wow.

It was bought at auction converted for living with a LIM (how do you get a LIM for a container???

that decision said;

The court was of the view that a literal interpretation of residential premises:

“...would give a measure of legitimacy to letting arrangements and transactions that are

illegal under other enactments. It would allow landlords who let premises as residential in

contravention of other enactments, such as the Resource Management Act, to be able to

paragraph [65].
use remedies provided by the RT Act against those tenants” –



On the facts before me, the premises cannot lawfully be used as residential premises

so anderson wamted to allow tenants to be protected by TT. But the TTT has gone too far and decsisded that being unlawful was sufficient to be refunded??? Someone appeal these turkeys????

[sidinz]

Well, yeah. When you have work commitments it's not exactly easy to just up sticks and move. Seven weeks is only 1 week longer than your "minimum" notice to vacate on a periodic tenancy.

But you have to wonder why anyone would pay $480 a week to rent out a shipping container. Certainly would have been a very good ROI, $480 a week on what a $50k building on a free bit of land presumably next door to the landlord.

As the council told her to get out, notice wouldn't have been necessary. There are always alternatives for single people in work - backpackers' , AirBnbs etc.

And there are some very nice container homes - even designer ones. All the mod cons, insulated, double-glazed windows etc.

[Nzdan]

As the council told her to get out, notice wouldn't have been necessary. There are always alternatives for single people in work - backpackers' , AirBnbs etc.

And there are some very nice container homes - even designer ones. All the mod cons, insulated, double-glazed windows etc.

The council gave her notice that it was to be vacated by 22/1/16, and supposedly she was out of there by 21/1/16 due to her unfortunate work commitments, she had sent her children down to Christchurch much earlier than that. Aside from not actually needing to vacate any earlier than she did, how many back packers will let you store a couple of trailer loads of belongings until you make arrangements to sell/transport/dispose of said belongings? But don't let a little bit of logic get in the way of a good peasant bashing aye .

[mrsaneperson]

The council gave her notice that it was to be vacated by 22/1/16, and supposedly she was out of there by 21/1/16 due to her unfortunate work commitments, she had sent her children down to Christchurch much earlier than that. Aside from not actually needing to vacate any earlier than she did, how many back packers will let you store a couple of trailer loads of belongings until you make arrangements to sell/transport/dispose of said belongings? But don't let a little bit of logic get in the way of a good peasant bashing aye .

If you have to analyze the overall outcome in these situations, on a case by case basis which mostly has led to unjust and illogical complete refund of all rent collected - exactly who is benefiting?

The government ? No. Financially they are at a loss since they are effectively paying for court processes via TT

The council? No. They receive nothing from any award ruled by TT.

The landlord? No. The accommodation may have been deemed deficient legally but refunding the entire rent is legalized robbery; in effect implying the tenant received no benefit from the service provided.

Other renters? No, since it actually drives up rents by reducing the number and types of accommodations available particularly in the lower income bracket thereby penalizing mostly the people who it says it is trying to protect.

The tenant in the circumstances ? Yes. And no doubt many more to come who may be perfectly happy with their bargain basement accommodation but if the reward is great enough the prostitute always appears.

Their has only been one sensible TT ruling in these situations which occurred May 2017, other adjudicators really should listen to these wise words where full rent was not refunded:

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/122812156.pdf

[sidinz]

mrsaneperson, why do you keep scatterbombing all relevant threads with this stuff? We know. It's tiresome to read the same thing, over and over again, on multiple threads.

[mrsaneperson]

mrsaneperson, why do you keep scatterbombing all relevant threads with this stuff? We know. It's tiresome to read the same thing, over and over again, on multiple threads.

Well its the most shell shocking determination for landlords that has ever come out of the TT that I'm aware of, involving thousands of dollars in rents collected to be returned to the tenant . Some forumites may read one thread but not another and so may not come to know of the information I have presented regarding adjudicator Stephensons ruling which is quite simply the only sensible one I have read.. Thousands of folks throughout NZ will undoubtedly be affected by these total refunds of all rents in the many variable situations existing out there. And their will be massive claims once knowledge is more widely spread unfortunately.

Actually that link posted above to a ruling made in May 2017 is a follow-on from the same adjudicator order I posted for Dec 2016 which was not fully resolved. So many may not be aware unless you read it that adjudicator Stephenson awarded a breach of consent for $2000 back to the tenant but did not allow tenants request to apply section 137 which would have resulted in full return of rent collected of $12960!!

So there you go sininz hopefully you are now more fully informed as to the outcome and legal parameters of the helpful information posted which i make no apologies for posting in threads which are all relevant to it.

[donna]

They'd be hundreds if not thousands of converted garages in breach of consent aye. Not sure I'd be sleeping too well if I was holding onto a few.

cheers,

Donna