Kitchen-in-Toilet in one room Studio4Rent@$190 pw – as WAS advertised by Ray White

[speights boy]

they dont have to disclose risk only knowledge of actual leaks

Not true.
(my bolding)

1. 10.7 A licensee is not required to discover hidden or underlying defects in land but must disclose known defects to a customer. Where it would appear likely to a reasonably competent licensee that land may be subject to hidden or underlying defects4, a licensee must either—
   1. (a) obtain confirmation from the client, supported by evidence or
      expert advice, that the land in question is not subject to defect; or
   2. (b) ensure that a customer is informed of any significant potential
      risk so that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses.
   
   
   
   

]For example, houses built within a particular period of time, and of particular materials, are or may be at risk of weathertightness problems. A licensee could reasonably be expected to know of this risk (whether or not a seller directly discloses any weathertightness problems). While a customer is expected to inquire into risks regarding a property and to undertake the necessary inspections and seek advice, the licensee must not simply rely on caveat emptor.

[John the builder]

so the agent must point out that every house he sells has potential risks and every rental may not comply.......and advise them to seek expert advise in writing

[speights boy]

Any SIGNIFICANT potential risk....yes.

Back to the WoF.
What I am saying, IF it was ever a requirement that a rental MUST have one, why are you so anti having the PM sight this document from the owner ?

[John the builder]

IF it was ever a requirement that a rental MUST have one,why are you so anti having the PM sight this document from the owner ?

I never said that but rather it is you that says the PM should be strung up for not knowing that the room needed work.

A WoF has good basis but who is going to issue them, the councils? They who are so quick to prosecute and impose their own policy, and contrary to the law?

[speights boy]

I never said that but rather it is you that says the PM should be strung up for not knowing that the room needed work.

If the room needed work and IF a WoF was mandatory for a rental, then it would not have been issued a Wof.
So, yes the PM should be held accountable if they advertise a rental without a WoF.

As would the owner of course.

[John the builder]

So, yes the PM should be held accountable if they advertise a rental without a WoF

.

you are saying the PM should be accountable (now)for something that isnt required (A WoF)....that is just silly

[speights boy]

No.
I am repsonding to the "what if" scenario you mentioned in post # 6.

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).

In addition John.
The sentence BEFORE your selective quote included this from me

IF a WoF was mandatory for a rental,

Why is it your use of "if" is deemed to be different from mine ?

[John the builder]

if you are advocating for WoFs as the answer why not simply state that?

my point was that there is danger is another layer of bureaucracy when the present one is so poorly executed by the powers that be and the present insanitary rules should have caught this situation and any way did. We don't need another stick. I agree however with a voluntary system to recognize good landlords.

[speights boy]

I'm on the fence about a WoF.....leaning more towards having one.
Won't affect me too much, so I'll leave that to those with more knowledge / skin in the game.
I do find posts by Sante on that subject interesting.

When you say this

......should have caught this situation and any way did.

that is why the whole discussion around PMs came about.

How was this caught....by a whistle blower to the Herald.
Not a very satisfactory system is it ?

[mrsaneperson]

I'm with John the Builder on this .How many 1000's of owners are living under the threat of prosecution by council for these situations? Many of these situations are very grey areas whwere there are lots of "variables" that come into play.

No one spotted that the "supposed" kitchen consists of an arbitrary removable appliance.These are allowed as they are not fixed wiring.

[sidinz]

I never said that but rather it is you that says the PM should be strung up for not knowing that the room needed work.

As they should.

I am usually with JTB on issues to do with minor dwellings/granny flats, but not on this one. I'm far from being a neat freak, am pretty lax with cleaning and eat all sorts of things that others would throw away in disgust. But the idea of cooking or just preparing food in a space that has sh!t particles continually floating around in it is just gross and anyone with half a brain would realise that it couldn't be legal.

As the PM under some agreements IS the landlord, it's their job to know this stuff and to make sure that properties they're renting out are safe and legal.

[John the builder]

just to clarify I am not justifying the lack of basic hygiene. A very simple and necessary requirement has been overlooked.

But the simple reaction should be to provide the space this required and this is a partition and door that can be simply provided lawfully without consent. At any time a tenant could have demanded the provision and the TT would have supported it. This should have been added when noted rather than the knee jerk reaction we have seen with council threatening 200k fine and the owner and PM cowered

[Leftette]

Agree, sidinz. I don't want arse-gas wafting around my kippers.

[speights boy]

At any time a tenant could have demanded the provision and the TT would have supported it.

You appear to be saying something along the lines of.

1. The PM advertises the property as it is,
2. Tenant signs a lease,
3,. Tenant complains,
4. Problems fixed.

Is that your suggested sequence of how things should work ?

[John the builder]

No I am saying that 4 (the fix) could have been achieved at steps 1 or 2 and/or 3. (and also preferably at 0 (pre-advert)).

This is all out of perspective