Can a Permitted Sleepout be Rented as a seperate tenancy under new rules

[Bluekiwi]

Have spoken to a lot of industry specialists and this is getting complicated.
Interested in peoples views.

Permitted separated sleepout with own drive and parking and also a separate garage.
With 2 bedrooms and bathroom.
And a semi kitchen - including all the cupboards and sink.
But no Oven or Cooking Top !!
Microwave included.

Can this be rented out as a residential dwelling under the tenancy act.

Advice prior to this proposed new legislation was that you could.
Now it is not so certain, the new rules could make thousands of dwellings illegal.

I am talking about a Full 60m2 Keith Hay Holmes sleep out.
That is exactly the same as a MDU but no oven / cook top.

[Anthonyacat]

To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, you're correct that the new law will 'outlaw' many of the current dwellings - I understand that such a dwelling needs to be rented out to the same person or group of people as the main dwelling.

I'm sure someone somewhere will notice this and sort it out before it causes a problem. Or if they don't, the market will adapt such that these dwellings will be jointly tenanted to two families; an administrative issue, but potential upside for landlords who will have joint and several claim over each family for the others' arrears. Once one of those hits the media, something will be done about it.

[Perry]

I've missed something. What new rules are being referred to?

[Bobsyouruncle]

Also confused, how could you ever rent it out separately? It's teh same as a granny flat, has to be on same tenancy as the main dwelling.

[Shalodge]

Also confused? I understand from the RTA that you can let any 'premises' which includes sleep outs and even caravans with or without additional specified 'facilities' shared or not? There doesn't seem to be anything that restricts you to one tenancy per lot?

If the discussion is about changes to the AUP and what defines a 'dwelling' under that plan then that is not related to the RTA. An MDU is not used any more but as I understand it, the difference between a 'sleep out with a bathroom and laundry" and a second dwelling is the provision of a kitchen.

That issue has been well covered in this thread..

https://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?41762-Another-quot-Granny-quot-flat-question

[Bluekiwi]

Also confused, how could you ever rent it out separately? It's teh same as a granny flat, has to be on same tenancy as the main dwelling.

I am pretty sure a legal Sleepout could be rented out separately.
It is only unpermitted work in garage conversions that you couldn't.
But this is what I am checking.

The other question someone asked is what new rules.
This just passed its final reading.

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

Being able to claimfor careless damage is good, but bill will also see the cracking down of landlords renting out properties that are not code compliant to be independently rented out.
Minor dwellings and converted garages or grannyflasts must be consented for permanent habitation, as normal, but also NOW, need consent to be rented out separately from the major dwelling.

Many interpretations of what all this exactly means, and especially for consented sleepouts.

But in general, we are going to see a massive reduction in properties able to be rented, especially when these rules combine with health and safety laws that property managers and landlords need to obey, and the insurance ramification's as well.

Lucky I have gone down the full consent and full compliance route.

Rents for fully consented places will go, some landlords with dodgy places are going to come under the hammer big time.
Fines up to 4k and loss of rent just being one part of that hurt.

[Nick G]

Updates to the RTA. Hold on to your legal home and incomes in Auckland gentlemen...

I've missed something. What new rules are being referred to?

[Shalodge]

Holy smokin Bat S**t .. I had heard vague whisperings about something like this but I did not realise it had got to the Bill stage. There must be thousands of 'unlawful' premises around the country being rented out.
If this Bill becomes law without change then it will not be possible to rent any building for dwelling purposes unless it has both resource consent and a building permit for habitation. Given that the determinations will be made by the TT then I think you could expect reasonably harsh decisions to be made.

Some possible interpretations could include:

1. Houses rented as (say) 3 bedroom must have the three bedrooms suitable for habitation and cannot include an unpermitted sleep out or garage as one of the bedrooms. This will be easy to get around as people can sleep where they want but it will probably become important that the tenancy agreement doesn't specify it as such.

2. Minor dwellings will be ok and be able to be separately tenanted but legal "sleepouts" with bathroom and no kitchen may not be treated as a separate tenancy without cooking facilities. This is an RMA matter rather than a building act issue but it seems these will also be captured by this proposed legislation.

3. Caravans are temporary accommodation and are actually not covered by the RTA. I would not be surprised if some changes are made to include Caravans in parks at least.

4. Renting out accommodation in commercial premises will not be possible unless the zoning allows for that or there is a resource consent in place. Then the building act requirements will kick in.

There will be a few unintended consequences I think.

[Perry]

Holy smokin Bat S**t. There will be a few unintended consequences I think.

Of course. But that's never worried the burgeoning bureaucracy before, has it?

In Hawke's Bay, it's not uncommon for itinerant workers to be given [temporary] accommodation in pack houses, because there is simply nothing else available, at the time.

[John the builder]

That Anderson decision had more questions than answers;

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/d1/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/72e05269-192d-4b0d-99bd-74b8a07a2218/72e05269-192d-4b0d-99bd-74b8a07a2218.pdf

there must be a difference between unlawful as in should not be there of has no legal authority and the arguable situations of building uses that may not be "approved" but are allowed under the law and are not contraventions.

[Perry]

If nothing else, it does show how easy it is to complicate things which should be simple, whether via the law of unintended consequences, or otherwise.

[Davo36]

First they make it very difficult and expensive to build, which leads people to turn anything they can into accommodation.

Then they outlaw this new accommodation.

[John the builder]

they havent changed any rules

they are using a different jurisdiuction (RTA) to impose policy and someone has to stand up to them

[Perry]

It's not as simple or complicated - either way.

Just as tis said that the right price and the market price is the figure agreed to by a willing buyer and a willing seller, free from external influences, so it should be for most everything, including rental accommodation - of any sort.

[Lighthouse]

Here is a recent determination 4087239 that refers to Andersons vs FM Custodians.
Google the address if you want pictures.
This one seems fairly straightforward. The landlord didn't turn up for the hearing and all the rent paid by the tenants was refunded. Just as well, the tenancy began early this year. I wonder if there were any previous tenants and whether they could also claim?
Perhaps the RTA will have the answer.