No code of compliance on rental home

[benedwar]

Can you legally rent a home that has no code of compliance?

Does anyone have knowledge of this or where to approach to find out?

Thanks

[Monsterbishi]

Even if you could, having effective insurance cover would be difficult.

[Nick G]

You can but beware of "professional tenants" claiming all their rent back on the threat of dobbing you into council.

[BigWal]

There was this case, which saw the owner getting pinged by the TT for all the rent paid on a property that didn't have building consent.

However, reason 12 has the following comments ...

In some circumstances, particularly where a lack of building consent relates to a part of a property, or is an oversight and only a technical breach that has caused no detriment, return of all rent could be contrary to the purpose of the Act, and unjust.

and ...

The Tribunal would also have to consider the merits where it is concerned that a tenant has taken advantage of accommodation expecting to later seek return of the rent, or brings a claim for a past tenancy about which, at the time, they made no complaint or suffered no detriment

.

But that's only the TT. I have no idea on how individual councils would treat this, or what penalties they could impose, although I suspect there would be considerable variance depending on which council you were dealing with.

And yes, I know - that ruling refers to building consents, rather than codes of compliance (the differences of which I know nada). Hopefully there's still some relevance.

[John the builder]

If a TT rules that not having a CCC was an unlawful tenancy then they could find against you under the RTA. But there no legal requirement to have a CCC for dwelling except for public buildings that may need a CPU if CCC not issued.

so if you dont need one for a dwelling do you need one for a rental?

Even if you did what about the 80% rentals built before 1992?

as for your insurer disclose to them and if they make an issue sack them?

[John the builder]

Big Wal

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/109826883.pdf

thanks for that decision it shows how important it is to push back against silly council impositions in the first place. Surely the property council or someone should be attacking this trend to criminalize landlords?

[Nice]

I understand the next round if changes to the RTA is going to address this. Just how far it will go remains to be see though.

[John the builder]

I understand the next round if changes to the RTA is going to address this.

how will it address this?

it is being driven by ideologues in the ministry are they the ones trusted to sort this out?

[Nice]

Let's face it, there have been any number of quite warranted cases recently where clearly substandard property has been rented out to those that neither know any better nor can afford to pay any more, by unscrupulous landlords. I'm guessing the law makers are trying to further legislate against this in the hope to reduce it.

Unfortunately, if they are successful, they are going to remove a heap of rental property at the lower end of the cost range, forcing even more people to live in their cars.

It will also mean many properties that are otherwise safe and of good standard that just don't have the final consent ticked off will perhaps be caught in the same trap.

It remains to be seen how far it will go.

[John the builder]

..............and what about the 80% that dont have any paperwork because they were built before 1992 or the majority of the remaining 20% with CCC's that are in worse condition because they were crap buildings as well and no better than the rest after 25 years of neglect and abuse!!!

[Perry]

Let's face it, there have been any number of quite warranted cases recently where clearly substandard property has been rented out to those that neither know any better nor can afford to pay any more, by unscrupulous landlords. I'm guessing the law makers are trying to further legislate against this in the hope to reduce it.

Unfortunately, if they are successful, they are going to remove a heap of rental property at the lower end of the cost range, forcing even more people to live in their cars.

It will also mean many properties that are otherwise safe and of good standard that just don't have the final consent ticked off will perhaps be caught in the same trap.

It remains to be seen how far it will go.

The unintended consequences of i dotting and t crossing are well worth considering.

As observed before, when Hawke's Bay suffers an influx of seasonal workers at harvest time, even caravans are impossible to rent. The consequence is often such that itinerant staff are living in pack houses, using camping equipment, plus staff 'smoko room' and ablution facilities. The entity allowing that, needing harvest staff as they do, must be in quite an awkward position.

The reference to opportunistic claims by tenants was of note, in that decision.

[teamchase]

Hi John the builder, you ask how will RTA amendment bill affect non code compliant properties..

I will add link below, but if what i hear and read are true short and curlies are: landlords must act lawfully, therefore only rent lawful buildings, if a building is not compliant, it is not lawful. future liability may be: 1. tenant may be able claim back part or all rent that relates to non code compliant property. 2. landlord may be liable for fine upto $4,000 (acting unlawfully). 3. landlord may not be able to claim for an damages the tenant does to while in an unlawful property. 4. no claim on loss of rent or arrears.

Plan to protect yourself from these changes...

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

[Perry]

. . . and what about the 80% that don't have any paperwork because they were built before 1992 . . . .

. . . if what i hear and read are true short and curlies are: landlords must act lawfully, therefore only rent lawful buildings . . . .

Plan to protect yourself from these changes...

And in your response, you addressed the pre-1992 buildings question where?

[teamchase]

And in your response, you addressed the pre-1992 buildings question where?

Hi Perry,

Apologies, I didn't acknowledge or reference pre building code (1992) properties, I just looked at the first post and blurted about taking heed of potential RTA changes..

Building works prior to the 1991 building act had "building permit" there was no requirement for a CCC. "permitted" not "consented"..
Anything for the next decade is under a different set of rules, and ccc can be obtained if your lucky. Do your research before taking any action if you're going down that path.

My current concern isnt on age of construction but in whether its a lawful property. I have pre 92 property which is lawful, and property which has needed me to jump thru council hurdles to prove it or parts of it as permissible, this doesn't mean they're code compliant, nor have a code of compliance.

[John the builder]

T
the question you raise is the key

where does it say buildings have to be compliant?

it does say they cannot be 'dangerous or insanitary' and it is an offence to use a building in this condition. So therefore unlawful.

but where is the requirement to be compliant?

if there isnt such a requirement then surely it is not unlawful?

there is no 'requirement' in the current building act for a building to have a CCC (the exception is public buildings that can be satisfied with a CPU and this exception proves the rule).

If it is the case that al;l buildings needed to be compliant then I can assure you that every building would be unlawful on the basis and that applies to buildings with CCC's as well.
This was the reality with leaky homes where every WHRS claim was a leaky because they all had the one leak to satisfy the definition.

It follows that only rented properties come under RTA scrutiny and every LL should be concerned at this or commonsense prevails and we acknowledge that unlawful does not mean just non compliant.