No code of compliance on rental home

[Rentex]

That is my understanding as well. There are quite a few tribunal orders online - 110558853, 109826883, 120559633.

[John the builder]

Bad decisions do not make bad law good. We need to fight this misinterpretation not feed the monster.

[mrsaneperson]

Ruling: Landlord to pay back all rent to tenant due to illegal building work..Ouch!!!

Just wondered if many have seen this recent TT ruling? This recent TT ruling would affect landlords throughout NZ in thousands of similar situations:
A Dunedin landlord rented his house out and due to illegal building work unbeknownst and confined to the lower basement area was ordered by TT and subsequent district court to pay back the entire rent received of almost 11k to the tenant. This was despite landlord receiving a COA certificate stating the work was of excellent workmanship 1 month after the tenant moved out:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11915184

[Lighthouse]

No monster feeding here, my comments are just a statement of the current state of play. Any advantage in terms of information is beneficial when making decisions under an uncertainty.

[mrsaneperson]

Yes i see there has been quite some discussion regarding all this and we are now starting to see the beginning of a gigantic wave of opportunistic tenants rushing off to TT when made aware they can now be awarded their entire rent payments back.

[Nick G]

Pretty much

Yes i see there has been quite some discussion regarding all this and we are now starting to see the beginning of a gigantic wave of opportunistic tenants rushing off to TT when made aware they can now be awarded their entire rent payments back.

[mrsaneperson]

There are an avalanche of judgments on line regarding TT orders for full return of rent paid back to tenant under sec137 . In this example the adjudicator appears reasonable in his assessment and build up but then veers off to a charade ordering the return of all rent :

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

[Rentex]

We've made a submission to the select committee on the amendment bill.

The MBIE pdf linked before is good reading as to what they are trying to achieve, one of the key aspects being jurisdiction for TT so they can do partial rent refunds acknowledging benefit of tenancy to tenant rather than only full refund as 'no jurisdiction'.

The amendment bill has a commencement date of 1st July 2018 and Parliament is now dissolved with election.
The council's and government need to talk and firm up the law soonest plus work out how far they want to go and how they will enable owners to confirm and if needed gain consent or S and S / COA quickly where there is uncertainty.
The 2016 amendment was ushered in with last minute and after the fact (October? 2016) wording changes which caused considerable pain. I fear this one is going to be the same.

It's not going to be fun for tenants in those affordable properties.

In many of the tribunal orders I've read maintenance issues seem to be a consistent theme.
The leaks and other faults then brought the consent issue to light.
If these properties were maintained it's unlikely they would have ended up in tribunal in the first place.
Commercial zoning being another common factor.
There are some unfair (IMHO) decisions as well.

[fuzzlevalve]

I am looking at first property now with no COC. Can I not rent it at all until I fix this? If only paperwork can this be right?

[Wayne]

I am looking at first property now with no COC. Can I not rent it at all until I fix this? If only paperwork can this be right?

Why doesn't it have a COC (or a CCC)?
If you read this thread there is a lot of opinion (rightly in my view under current law) that says no CCC doesn't necessarily mean 'illegal'.
If it doesn't have a CCC and is not safe or sanitary then you'd have a problem.
By the same token if it has a CCC and isn't safe and sanitary you'd have a problem also (remember that the CCC is at a point in time).

Then you get the vagaries of the TT so using any sort of logic may be fraught.

[Meehole]

Adjudicator Stephenson, have been in his presence twice, know of 2 complaints currently against him. Reading through the link at #82 I agree with the outcome in this instance. Without intending to sound racist I can categorically say in my experience I have seen my fair share of asian home owners convert or titivate a property on the cheap with the intention of renting it out or selling it.
Any yes before I get blasted there have been a few wiley old white guys that have done the same thing over the years but not to the degree or intensity of the asians here in Auckland.
It's still happening, one of our employees rents a Mt Roskill property owned by an overseas asian investor and managed by an asian property management company. Their requests to get repairs done falls on deaf ears and it frustrates me as they then pay out of their own pocket to get things fixed. They fear that their lease will not be renewed and despite the maintenance issues they like where they live.
It should be pointed out that HNZ properties don't have a CCC, in fact ACC don't even hold files for HNZ properties. So if a CCC or safe and sanitary was a prerequisite then ALL their properties would be non compliant in this instance.

[Wayne]

It should be pointed out that HNZ properties don't have a CCC, in fact ACC don't even hold files for HNZ properties. So if a CCC or safe and sanitary was a prerequisite then ALL their properties would be non compliant in this instance.

Why don't they have CCC? Is there no requirement because they are the 'Govt'?

[Tenant17]

Not all are opportunistic. For example if a tenant has a legitimate claim under a different section of the act, but the property is unconsented, then the Anderson decision suggests that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction other than to apply s137. So what choice would the tenant have in this situation?

Also not all adjudicators are awarding rent refunds under s137. At least a couple of decisions recently have said that if the Act doesn't apply because the property is unconsented and therefore not a 'residential premise', then this should also include s137. So if this happens it would leave a tenant that has a genuine grievance without any possible RTA remedy for landlord breaches.

[Meehole]

Why don't they have CCC? Is there no requirement because they are the 'Govt'?

Not sure Wayne, nobody could tell me. However they can't have CCC if there is no file for the property.
Might have something to do with this........???
Section 41 Building Act 2004
Building consent not required in certain cases1. Despite section 40, a building consent is not required in relation to a Crown building or Crown building work to which, under section 6,this Act does not apply;

[flyernzl]

What about older properties?
eg a 1910 villa converted into two flats back in the 1960s?

What papertrail or consents would be around for that?