Warrant of Fitness for rentals (including details)

[flyernzl]

So far not much take up of a voluntary wof in Wellington

I suspect most of the 'take up' has been along the lines 'lets get the hell out of this business and into AirBnB'.

[Viking]

Anyone noticed how the homeless have disappeared since the last couple of weeks. gone with the wave of a wand and some fairy dust.

[Meehole]

Anyone noticed how the homeless have disappeared since the last couple of weeks. gone with the wave of a wand and some fairy dust.

They were never there in the first place, a figment of peoples imagination.

[artemis]

So we now have confirmation of two passes in the first 6 months of the Wellington CC RWOF scheme. It's the market's fault, plus the University of Otago in Wellington is scrambling to tell us that voluntary schemes don't work for landlords. (Hint - it oughta be mandatory.)

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/348964/dismal-rental-wof-uptake-blamed-on-tight-market

The WCC won't say how many applied and failed, but we were told back in November that there had been 4 applications. There is a short list of passes at the below link, noting that the passed WOFs are #132 and #133.

wellington.govt.nz/services/rates-and-property/property/rental-warrant-of-fitness

[Perry]

Given the rabid disposition of Philippa Howden-Chapman, the nature of her comments are expected and can be ignored.

But The New Zealand Initiative think-tank economist Sam Warburton, had a better idea. He suggested that if the council kept its scheme it should change to a star-rating system. It would be a form of self-regulation that is similar to hotels and motels and should work better.

Of course, the reality is that doing such things is not and should not be part of any council's business, anyway.

[Nick G]

It's a waste of time but if they must do it in order to say that they've done something then it should be a score system, good for 10 years and self-assessable with a right to audit by council. There are about half a million rental properties in New Zealand. A compulsory $250 WOF for all of them every 3 years pulls $40mil+ out of the economy per year and because we operate in a user pays society the tenants will pay for it, the government will subsidize them in some way and thus the nation as a whole will effectively fund needless regulation of private rentals.

[artemis]

Given the rabid disposition of Philippa Howden-Chapman, the nature of her comments are expected and can be ignored.

But The New Zealand Initiative think-tank economist Sam Warburton, had a better idea. He suggested that if the council kept its scheme it should change to a star-rating system. It would be a form of self-regulation that is similar to hotels and motels and should work better.

Of course, the reality is that doing such things is not and should not be part of any council's business, anyway.

I left a message for Sam Warburton earlier today asking if the NZ Initiative might do some research and report on the RWOF. Nick G above research mentions costs and there are also many other costs as well. Including funding for the University of Otago in Wellington from the Health Council and maybe elsewhere- already millions (I think, hard to tell from their list of grants, might need OIA request) and they will get further funding to review the results of the Wellington scheme. (Won't take long.)

[Davo36]

Of course, this is already done for commercial/industrial buildings.

When the building is built, council identify systems that need regular checking and put this on a 'compliance schedule'.

It includes things like air conditioning, lifts, fire alarm systems, automatic doors etc.

And so at various times of the year, an Independently Qualified Person (IQP ) goes to the property and tests that the system is working ok. They issue a bit of paper saying so. There are different IQPs for different systems. Then at the end of each year, they all issue a statement which goes to one of the companies who gather all of this stuff together and issue a building WOF.

And of course all of this takes up time and costs a lot. I pay over $2k pa for these checks for one little building.

The council also charges around $130 to 'check' the WOF i.e. you send them a copy (mandatory) and they 'receive'. Money for jam, again.

Note that when this scheme first came out, owners used to do a lot of these checks themselves. But at some point it was deemed that owners were cheating and not doing the checks properly, so then the whole IQP thing was put in place.

[Perry]

How fair and/or reasonable is a comparison between a hotel or motel and a PPOR residential rental?

[artemis]

At the below link is the MBIE document for initiating the consultation process to set rental standards under the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act. I think we can be sure that the rental WOF advocates will be consulted. A lot.

An extract from the doc, noting that there is a clear intention that only fixed heating will be acceptable. Thre is recognition of impacts on cost, availability and compliance in the document. Landlords need to be heard on those issues at least.

"There is a well-established, reputable body of international evidence about the public
health impacts of indoor air quality and temperature, and the health benefits of providing
effective heating, insulation and ventilation. There is also reputable evidence that many
New Zealand homes have deficient heating, insulation and ventilation and that this
deficiency cannot be addressed with portable heating devices. "

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/housing-and-property/ris-residential-rental-properties-heating-and-insulation-standards.pdf

[Perry]

A Village Ministry with a Surplus of Idiots.

"There is a well-established, reputable body of international evidence about . . . the health benefits of providing effective heating, insulation and ventilation. There is also reputable evidence that many New Zealand homes have deficient heating, insulation and ventilation and that this deficiency cannot be addressed with portable heating devices.

There are so many fallacies in that, that it's hard to know where to start.

I'll start with this excerpt:
heating, insulation and ventilation deficiency cannot be addressed with portable heating devices.

Then re-phrase that from negative to positive:

heating, insulation and ventilation deficiency can be addressed with fixed heating devices.

Are the dipsticks at the Ministry of Bungling & Inappropriate Expenditure that thick?

I.e. Please explain how a fixed heating device will remedy a deficiency in insulation and ventilation?

Morons!

[Perry]

That document contains this gem:

2.5 What do stakeholders think?
No submissions were received from interested groups associated with landlords.

Not even the NZPIF?

[artemis]

That document contains this gem:

Not even the NZPIF?

I did not submit because the Bill was completely lacking in detail, and relied on specifics to be determined later. We are now at that stage, though the consultation process has yet to begin.

I intend to submit, and will include 'life incompetent' tenant behaviour as the elephant in the room..

[Perry]

And the biggest item of all is who or what 'forces' tenants to spend their winter warm-up grant on heating the house, instead of booze, baccy and takeaways!

The warm part of warm and dry is 100% unenforceable!

The dry part of warm and dry wont be easy, either.

[Learning]

Anyone else notice the key questions in this years census’s? -
- Is your dwelling damp?
- Do you have mould spot larger than a sheet of A4?