Warrant of Fitness for rentals (including details)

[artemis]

There is quite a long thread on Rental WOFs on the Trademe Real estate message board (link at the bottom of this post). The latest comment concerns this item from the draft checklist:

28. Are there handrails for all internal stairs and all outdoor steps that access the house, and do balconies/decks have balustrades to the current Building Code? (Yes/no)

The response from a poster who has been involved in the trials, and who is a staunch supporter of the scheme, indicates that sloping paths and (all) steps would need handrails. I'd bet that this is to meet ACC requirements, allowing ACC to shift cost from themselves to landlords. This requirement will be a big expense for Wellington landlords.

The requirement in some checklist items to meet the current building code should be a concern to landlords. Lord knows what that would cost landlords.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=1407118&topic=21

[artemis]

And a reminder to landlords to sign the anti-wof petition here:

http://www.nzcpr.com/nzcpr-campaigns/anti-wof-petition/

[flyernzl]

The petition target is 2000 signatures.

Right now, 1550 have signed.

So get over there and do it Your help is essential, and in your own best interests.

[Davo36]

Signed it, but it will do no good I fear.

[Perry]

Agree with David. Muriel & Co do a great job of providing
in-depth and well-researched info on pertinent matters.
That's produced a body of some 40 to 50,000 (???) well-
informed voters. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough to
make a difference.

[Keys]

Signed it, but it will do no good I fear.

Was involved in a petition to force a referendum. Complete waste of time and effort.

[Perry]

I wonder what statutory backing this odd-ball notion might have?
Look at the requirements of the RTA:

45 Landlord's responsibilities

(1) The landlord shall—

(b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
......having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period
......during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available
......for residential purposes;

Could it be a full defence against a requirement to have (say) handrails to
say that - as a residential rental - the property complies with s45(1)(a)?

[Leftette]

Sloping paths and all steps??? WTF?

[Wayne]

I wonder what statutory backing this odd-ball notion might have?

None at all would be my pick!

[artemis]

Agree with David. Muriel & Co do a great job of providing
in-depth and well-researched info on pertinent matters. That's produced a body of some 40 to 50,000 (???) well-
informed voters. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough to make a difference.

Yep, agreed. However, a mailbag full of your actual letters - OK maybe send a copy by email but letters on paper work well - will get the attention of MPs. When industry responses are called for. Which I presume they will be.

[Bob Kane]

Sloping paths and all steps??? WTF?

I agree.
If this is the way rental WOF is heading then I'm pulling out.
I'll just ignore it.
It seems to be hijacked by the lunatic leftwing.

[mrsaneperson]

I feel their is enough existing legislation with the RTA that protects tenants to a reasonable standard of WOF already. A tenant can issue a landlord a 14 day notice to effect a repair for something if its of concern,. I dont feel this new proposed WOF will give any more protection and will instead drive up the costs of rents if over zealous safety issues become enforcable. Just like the new unattended paddling pool 30cm height law its another piece of legislation that will do nothing good .
Stay out of our lives bureaucrats!

[artemis]

Interesting article at the link below, with info to support an average upgrade cost of $9700 per property. The benefits are trivial in amount. But bigger benefit is likely to come from a reduction in overcrowding, which will be exacerbated by the WOF scheme if rents increase. And in any case is scarcely relevant to a WOF. Whole item is worth a read. An extract:

A survey of literature cited to support a property rental warrant-of-fitness scheme reveals that the amount each landlord could be expected to pay for upgrades is $9700 for each property. As for the benefits, which go to the local health board in reduced hospitalization and not to the property owner, may be a meager $34.80 a year for each household with a child under the age of 15.

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/mike-butler-9700-wof-cost-for-landlords.html

[mrsaneperson]

A reduction in overcrowding? How out of touch. Please take your rose tinted glasses off. Many island , Asian & Maori families like living together in what "Europeans" would call crowded conditions but please understand that is part of their culture. It also helps big families to save money.

The childrens commissioner is a complete whacko! Every single childrens commissioner i can recall has been a wack job because they're out of touch with the real world that these families live in. These are the bureaucrats that make the problems worse .Regarding insulation many landlords have taken up on the government offers and insulated already .

Tenants can insulate themselves by wearing thick clothing.The climate in Auckland is a lot warmer than it used to be with far less humidity.The kids in the poorer socio economic areas die early from respiratory disease because some families let them run around in the winter without tops & shoes on.

[eri]

yes, it's just another socialist attempt to force those that can/will

look after those that

can't/won't

why teach a man to fish

he doesn't want to fish

he just wants fish

scaled, gutted, filleted and fried

today, tomorrow, for ever