Is an oven a legal requirement?

[artemis]

We have a new tenant in a studio apartment which has a two burner hob and a microwave. The tenant apparently didn't notice that there was no oven before signing up, and has now it seems been told by the Dept of Building and Housing that a facility to grill and bake is a legal requirement.

Before I investigate further, is anyone else aware of such a requirement? And if so, would it be a DBH issue or a local authority type issue?

I should add that the kitchenette was designed and installed by Kitchen Studio, who specifically assured me at the time an oven is not required, but I don't have chapter and verse for that.

Regardless of the legalities (if any) we will probably get the tenant the cheapest possible benchtop oven.

[donna]

Good question - I thought it was always a requirement - however with small apartments, studios, bedsits etc maybe it isn't a requirement - maybe it depends on the size of the place - and accommodation type.

Cheers,

Donna

[SuperDad]

A facility to grill and bake is a legal requirement for letting out a premisses?

Surely not!!!

[freeloader]

http://dbh.govt.nz/compliance-docs-get-copies

Look under G3. It says housing dwelling should be provided with a cooker with an oven and a hot plate ..

I would assume all legal houses need to provide these. Student facilities probably don't as they have communal kitchens.

[spurner]

Not sure what the legal requirements are, but I have a couple of sleepouts without the traditional style oven.

I normally buy a benchtop oven from Harvey Norman, for about $200. They last for 2-7 years normally, depending on how much they get used. I don't bother with a microwave or anything.

[BusyLizzy]

Not sure what the legal requirements are, but I have a couple of sleepouts without the traditional style oven

.

I thought there are legal issues around having an oven in a bedsit?! Could be wrong on this, but I vaguely recall discussions on this previously...

[Keithw]

"Look under G3. It says housing dwelling should be provided with a cooker with an oven and a hot plate .."

What a stupid rule.
most of my apartment ovens are like band new - never used except perhaps to warm up yesterdays chips !!!

hot plates are well used but ovens never.

[artemis]

OK, I have an update from DBH. They say that according to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (yes, 1947, that is not a typo) s 7 (ii) that a kitchen or kitchenette must have facilities to boil and bake (no mention of grilling). I asked if a microwave counts for 'baking' but seems not, according to the DBH team leader's interpretation. They were not persuaded by my idea that cooking a cake in a microwave counts as baking! Or that as microwaves were not around in 1947, the regs may be a little technologically challenged.

I haven't checked the reference.

Anyway, right there on Trademe was a benchtop oven with grill, closing this morning, and located in the next suburb. A successful $20 bid later and the tenant will soon have her legal requirement, and a grill even. Talk about above and beyond ...

[Green Fish]

Very informative: I had always wondered why developers bothered with kitchenettes in shoebox apartment buildings, when the logical thing to do was to have nothing. But the 1947 regs say otherwise. (They also say that every living room has to have a fireplace and a chimney "or some other suitable form of heating".)

Keithw must be tearing his hair out. I guarantee that none of his tenants cook anything in their unit. When they want to eat, they take a short walk down the road and buy a perfectly good meal for less than it would cost them to cook it themselves.

Time to review the 1947 regulations.

[NZGEMS]

good on you I always thought they should have one but all the small units I had I did the same bought one off trademe for $20 or so infact that was a great buy i think I had paid about $160 once for one, but bought one for $3 once too. just a little bench top oven this had 2 elements on the top of it. they work well in the little units and tenants are always happy with them.

[Perry]

http://dbh.govt.nz/compliance-docs-get-copies

Look under G3. It says housing dwelling should be provided with a cooker with an oven and a hot plate.

"Should be?" It's unusual for Statute or Regulation
to be drafted in such discretionary language. Odd.

Hhhmmm I wonder what
possibilities this opens up?

To Let:
Artist Studio

Tenant: Looks good, I could live here.
But what do I cook on? Where's the
oven and/or stove?

PI: This is offered as an artist's studio.
If you choose to live here, that's your
affair, but it is not being offered as
a residential tenancy, because it does
not have cooking facilities.

Tenant: Oh, that's OK. It suits me well
and I have a gas ring and LPG bottle.

PI: That sounds like a good arrangement.
Sign here.

Tenant signs TA.

PI: Just be aware of one thing with this
studio. Because it has no inbuilt cooking
facilities, it's not being offered as a resid-
ential tenancy, so neither you nor it is
covered by the RTA.

Hhhhhmmmm . . . .

[outspoken]

Tenant: Oh, that's OK. It suits me well
and I have a gas ring and LPG bottle.

WARNING: expensive insurance at best, P Lab potential at worst

[Perry]

Just substitute 'barbeque' then.

But that's not really the point of the hypothesis . . .

[outspoken]

Oh yeah, I know Perry, I was being....not sure what I was being.

The point was that you could be trying to contract outside of the RTA?

[Perry]

Well, no. Or maybe no. If DBH (responsible for the RTA)
says that it's not a residence if it doesn't have a stove/oven/
whatever, and the RTA is for Residential dwellings only, would
my hypothesis not show consistency with the bureaucracy
and their books of BS?

I have a close example. Commercial premises, with toilet,
shower, tub and sink bench for smoko/meal management, etc.
The tenant chooses to 'live-in.' I don't condone it; I accept it.
The premises are covered by a Lease Agreement, which specifies
that the premises are not a residence (and they certainly aren't)
and the RTA does not apply.

Interestedly, the previous tenant did the same, for 12 months.

So just rewind to my hypothesis and change TA to LA (being
Lease Agreement)