No code of compliance on rental home

[Nice]

John,

This is to do with upcoming changes to the RTA, affecting rented properties only.

Yes, every landlord should be concerned about it; or every landlord trying to extract every last cent out of their property by renting out the garage or the unconsented granny flat anyway. There seems to be an over supply of these in Auckland, trying to meet the demand of the poulation growth, the lack of affordable housing being built, and those that cannot afford real houses to live in.

I too have one or two that I am looking into; very minor issues 13 years ago to do with pipes penetrating weatherboard walls that didn't get sealed off properly at the time at the completion of a bathroom renovation, and I didn't follow them up.

Does it affect the tenants in any way at all ? NO. But if someone concerned asks in relation to the RTA changes, then I may well go for a skate, so looking to resolve it now. How major is my situation ? Very low risk in all aspects, and there are much bigger fish to be caught out there, but I'm not prepared to take the risk, and am suggesting to all landlords, particulatrly Property Managers, that they should be doing the same !

[John the builder]

and what is wrong with renting out a granny flat? and that doesn't need to be approved in the first place?

[teamchase]

Granny flats are fine... provided they are known/permitted/compliant at the TA... many arent..
In the eyes of the law, converting your rumpus into a self contained unit without permission is not ok...

The issues this law change are claiming to be concerned with are based on risks of health and safety. An example, granny flat unconsented, may not have fire rated intertenancy, so risk could be fire fire related (for example).

[John the builder]

you dont need a consent to estabish a granny flat they can be developed usually as of right. So how does a LL prove they are lawfull?

and a granny flat doesnt need firerating as it is part of the same dwelling and same household yet you would say unlawfull for example? Do you not see the danger here?

[Nice]

Last time I converted a single dwelling into 2 flats here in Wellington it was suggested by WCC that it would be a whole lot cheaper for me yo do a granny flat rather than a separate dwelling. No fire proofing, no development contribution, no eq requirements etc. The down side was I could not rent it out to non-family members.

I took the expensive option, even though I couldn't see WCC ever figuring it out, and glad I did now.

Like most law changes that are still coming, nobody actually knows what is coming in detail; but there are some obvious issues they will now likely cover.

[teamchase]

The term Granny flat is originally for family, not intended to be separate tenancies. My experience is theyre not allowed the same cooking facilities, i.e. no oven, tho they often have a full kitchen... if changes occur to RTA council will be rubbing their palms together, looking for those development contributions, take note that there are ways to debate if you need to pay this "development" cost.. i.e. are you really developing a property, or are you just meeting councils demands to an already established but not strictly lawful property.

Theres a number of good threads on property talk about granny flats, heres a link to one of the many https://www.propertytalk.com/forum/s...vs-Granny-Flat

[John the builder]

nice
WCC gave you good advise except the reasoning that applies to granny flat also applies to households and you can rent a part of the same household to a different tenant as long as they know they are part of that same household. That is inherent in a family and granny (although we all know a granny
who is neglected) and more obvious when we rent to a boarder or flatmate but ls less clear when it is a different tenant.

unfortunately council operate by examples and dont always go back to first principles when faced with something different.

But if you consider the different scenarios there is no difference in practice or greater risk except we all know that social cohesion increases with better relationships but even a family can be dysfunctional.

there is no law change coming this is all happening with current use of RTA building act and RMA. Auckland council arranges a tag team with the Tenancy services planners and fire service and the swamp owners under the guise of boardinghouse breaches when they in fact have no right to a inspection of a household unit without a court order. (unless it is a boarding house or non private residence)

the advantage of the 'expensive option' is that you can have seperate tenancies and you could go the next step and subdivide and create separate ownership which could be added value? But is that economic?

[Wayne]

I rented out a house with no CCC!
Insurance didn't care so long as it was built to comply. If something happened and it was found that it was due to non compliance then they wouldn't have paid out.
Having CCC makes it easier to prove that you are compliant.

The house was new, CCC did arrive, but the fact remains that it didn't have a CCC when first rented.

The thing to look at is - is the house safe and sanitary? Why doesn't it have a CCC.
In the case JTB mentioned the council determined that the building was not safe and was unsanitary - not only didn't have CCC but wouldn't be able to get one. It shouldn't have been rented.

[PonsonbyPM]

Technically under the current law, illegal buildings are not allowed to be rented out - this may include non-compliant works, sleepouts, commercial spaces, converted garages, basement flats, etc. The recent TT ruling in the North Shore shows this - $5000+ against the landlord. Once the current RTA amendment No2 is cemented, they will start to seriously police this.
Obviously, the aim is to get rid of the old, cold & unhealthy garages/basements being sold as 'flats'.
Regardless of your insurance considerations, if you are a landlord of one of these types of 'dual' or 'additional' income properties, you risk being dobbed in by anyone - the annoying neighbour, or the disgruntled tenant, ex wife, etc. Risky with current tenancies, but you would certainly want to add suitable clauses to your TA for your own protection moving forward.

[Wayne]

Technically under the current law, illegal buildings are not allowed to be rented out - this may include non-compliant works, sleepouts, commercial spaces, converted garages, basement flats, etc. The recent TT ruling in the North Shore shows this - $5000+ against the landlord. Once the current RTA amendment No2 is cemented, they will start to seriously police this.
Obviously, the aim is to get rid of the old, cold & unhealthy garages/basements being sold as 'flats'.
Regardless of your insurance considerations, if you are a landlord of one of these types of 'dual' or 'additional' income properties, you risk being dobbed in by anyone - the annoying neighbour, or the disgruntled tenant, ex wife, etc. Risky with current tenancies, but you would certainly want to add suitable clauses to your TA for your own protection moving forward.

Which current law and define 'illegal'.
This is where the issue lies.
Under the RTA the place has to be 'safe and sanitary' - it doesn't have to have a CCC

[John the builder]

Which current law and define 'illegal'.
This is where the issue lies.
Under the RTA the place has to be 'safe and sanitary' - it doesn't have to have a CCC

Wayne I agree with you but where does it say safe and sanitary in the RTA

[PonsonbyPM]

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/tenancy/residential-tenancies-amendment-bill/unlawful-residential-premises-questions

This should assist to clarify the proposed amendment of the RTA being highlighted.

[Wayne]

Wayne I agree with you but where does it say safe and sanitary in the RTA

You are right - it says
45 Landlord’s responsibilities
(1) The landlord shall—
(a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and
(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; and
(ba) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A; and
(bb) if the tenancy is an income-related rent tenancy, comply with all requirements in respect of insulation imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138B; and
(bc) if the tenancy is not an income-related rent tenancy, comply with any requirement imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138B that provides (generally or in specified circumstances)—
(i) for the prohibition of any insulation (or any material or other item related to insulation) of a specified description; or
(ii) that any work, or other activity, of a specified description that is carried out during the tenancy must be carried out in accordance with a specified New Zealand Standard or a specified provision of a New Zealand Standard; or
(iii) that specified requirements in relation to thermal resistance (as defined in the regulations) must be met where any work, or other activity, of a specified description is carried out during the tenancy; and
(c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises

[Wayne]

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-service...ises-questions
This should assist to clarify the proposed amendment of the RTA being highlighted.

I know about that but you did say 'under the current law' and that one is proposed.

[John the builder]

I know about that but you did say 'under the current law' and that one is proposed.

from that list;
"(c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises"

while this only means the building Act requires safe and sanitary there are idiots in the councils and TT saying "compliance" is required! This ill informed opinion is where the problem is?