Originally posted by crashy
View Post
I have another property which was sold to me as a 3 bedroom plus a one bedroom basement flat. Two valuation reports and the real estate agent at the time stated it as such. The rates billing lists the property as 1 dwelling , however the original owner had done unauthorized works converting the basement adding a kitchen plus lounge, bedroom and shower. This arrangement shared a laundry and toilet with the 3 bedroom accommodation upstairs. He had then gotten a safe and sanitary engineering report done on it all and council recorded and accepted it as such on the LIM . It was never stated by council at the time that the building cannot be rented out as 2 separate dwellings. When council initially become aware of these situations upon acceptance of any unauthorized works via a "safe & sanitary". they must legally state in black and white any ""limitations of use"" in said situations. The tenant in the lower section now has their own laundry, fuller bathroom and separate toilet built since acquiring the property after applying for consent, again no" limitation of use" inferred. I use standard tenancy agreements and have had the same tenant living in the one bedroom basement flat now for over 12 years. Other tenants have come and gone over time in the 3 bedroom above it. I include power and water in the rent. For any unmetered account the RTA stipulation is that you cannot state it as a fixed amount .
There are so many variable situations out there with any manner and number of circumstances prevailing.
I have always acted above board ,and done my best when presented with situations caused through no fault of my own ; even so the current climate of these GROSSLY unfair rulings, particularly for example in the Dunedin case is an embarrassment to our legal system and NZ.
Comment