while this only means the building Act requires safe and sanitary
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No code of compliance on rental home
Collapse
X
-
-
A ccc does not guarantee condition it just makes its more Likely
You often focus on outcomes and forget that CCCs and other compliance instruments are legislative processes designed to allocate responsibility and create a legal liability to achieve those outcomes. In a perfect world none of that would be needed and everyone would somehow know what outcomes they were responsible for and what others would be responsible for or would help in achieving.
We want people to live in health homes (an outcome) but who is responsible for achieving that... builders, architects, home owners, landlords or tenants themselves or a combination of all? What mechanism and process do we use to allocate those responsibilities and how can we ensure that they are carried out. Well that mechanism is called law (legislation) and ensuring that they are carried out is called compliance.
I understand that you don't like that system and that is fine but its what we have until we can develop a better one?
Comment
-
I was following you until you had some sort of brain fart and this gem came out?
The responsibility is to the tenant who agrees to rent.
It reads like you are saying a tenant who rents a house becomes responsible for maintaining it? Well that's obviously not right. So are you trying to say that when a tenant signs up to rent a property they are also accepting that it is up to code and removing liability from the owner? Good luck with that!
Comment
-
if the condition is poor the tenant has options to take the matter to the tenacy services. They should take personal responsibility for the conditions they live in and stop expecting nanny state to intervene. A lpot of probllems are caused by tenant hygiene cleanliness and care of their environment including heating and ventilation and tell LL when things are broke.
That is the responsibility i refer to!
Comment
-
Well it seems that (in another thread) if the tenancy tribunal decides a place is not 'residential accommodation' then all the rent paid so far has to be returned and perhaps other monies paid as well.
So having a place that has no CCC seems to be a lot riskier now than before.Squadly dinky do!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shalodge View PostIt is a statement that a BCA is satisfied and liability then shifts to that BCA to the extent of that authorities responsibilities. It is one reason why BCAs (Councils usually) and as a result ratepayers, have had to pay out for leaky buildings.
You often focus on outcomes and forget that CCCs and other compliance instruments are legislative processes designed to allocate responsibility and create a legal liability to achieve those outcomes. In a perfect world none of that would be needed and everyone would somehow know what outcomes they were responsible for and what others would be responsible for or would help in achieving.
Lack of a CCC doesn't tell you that the building is unsafe and unsanitary though.
The lack of CCC could be because of something insignificant regarding 'safe and sanitary' (after all the CCC is wider than S&S) - maybe it is all OK and builder went bust and took some bit of documentation with him.
I don't disagree that people should get a CCC but people here keep implying 'no CCC = unsafe and/or unsanitary' therefore can't rent which, at the moment (the new law hasn't passed yet) isn't true.
Originally posted by John the builder View Postit could be a dwelling (with a CCC) but also insanitary so unlawful!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostWell it seems that (in another thread) if the tenancy tribunal decides a place is not 'residential accommodation' then all the rent paid so far has to be returned and perhaps other monies paid as well.
So having a place that has no CCC seems to be a lot riskier now than before.
Comment
-
Hi Wayne, a question similar to yours is how the whole issue got started in Anderson v FM Custodians.
Currently, if there is an agreement (either written or unwritten) to provide residential accommodation and the accommodation is not lawful then under section 137 it is an illegal act to rent the accommodation and it is highly likely that all rent will be refunded and the cost of any damage that was done by the tenant will be unrecoverable.
This stems from the way adjudicators interpret Anderson v FM Custodians Ltd [2013] NZHC 243. The argument is that tenants should have some protection if the property that they reside in is not "lawful" and hence not covered by the RTA. Upcoming changes to the law look like they will cement in and provide a rock solid foundation for this approach but it may be that the adjudicators will have more discretion under the changes so perhaps not all rent will be refunded?
If the nature of any agreement is such that it is not a residential tenancy agreement then this agreement would sit completely outside the RTA and not be affected by any of the previous considerations.
My understanding of this issue comes from looking at a large number of recent determinations and seeing how matters are applied in practice rather than considering merits or fairness of the outcomes.
Comment
-
They're Coming to Get You
Ruling leaves landlord $10K out of pocket
"A Dunedin landlord says he feels robbed after being ordered to refund more than $10,000 rent to a former tenant because of a legal technicality.
Vic Inglis says he and his wife are feeling "pretty dark and twisted" after the Tenancy Tribunal found Natalie Parry's tenancy was unlawful - and therefore she was entitled to a refund of all rent paid - because unpermitted alterations had been made to the two-storey home's downstairs area."
"In April, the tribunal found Parry had entered into an unlawful tenancy due to the unpermitted work on the home's bottom floor.
Due to that, section 137 (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect meaning Parry was entitled to a full refund of rent of $10,960.44. It also meant Inglis' counterclaim for $3519 for compensation and exemplary damages could not proceed and was dismissed."
Comment
-
On the face of what has been written it seems very unfair.
The work may have been unconsented but appears it was safe and sanitary.
Of course we only have the facts as presented.
So it's off to the District Court who may bring some sanity into the matter.
Comment
Comment