• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. #41

    Default

    14. In this case, the premises were not lawfully compliant but were tenanted by Mr Sinclair,nevertheless. The Council documents on file show that Mr Shen breached the Building Act

    2004 by carrying out building works (conversion of the garage to a two bedroom self-containedunit) without a building consent under section 40 and the works do not comply with section 17

    where all works must comply with the building code. The Council has deemed the building insanitary on the following factors: (1) inappropriate wastewater system, (2) insufficient ground

    levels and (3) no provision to prevent moisture raising through the concrete floor as there is no Damp Proof membrane and through the building envelope. The Council has further advised

    that it will issue notices unless the building is converted back to a detached garage and is not made habitable


    15.I therefore find that the self-contained unit does not qualify as "residential premises" as that term is defined in Section 2 of the RTA. On the evidence, the conversion of the garage was not

    authorised by a building consent. The premises cannot lawfully be used as residential premises and is therefore an unlawful tenancy


    the 24000 manukau decision is a crock!

    the council allegations at 14 are spurious. The garage can be converted without a consent and 15 doesnt follow as there is no 'approval' needed to rent out a building.

    The damp proof membrane and the ground levels are not unlawfull and the wastewater could be B..S... as well but not enough detail to know.

    I hope Mr Johnny Shen is appealing??
    Last edited by John the builder; 30-10-2017 at 01:26 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Three quite different cases really.
    The first are a pair of flats that seem to be well converted and safe. Everyone happy but the TT feels it MUST order that all rent be paid back.

    I feel for the LL in the Hamilton case - seems that they had a well kept premises but got caught.
    Fecking witch hunt. They clearly looked for someone to make an example of. They misapplied the Anderson ruling and screwed over the poor landlords. They also completely ignored the fact that the work was pre 1992. Feckers.
    My blog. From personal experience.
    http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sidinz View Post
    Fecking witch hunt. They clearly looked for someone to make an example of. They misapplied the Anderson ruling and screwed over the poor landlords. They also completely ignored the fact that the work was pre 1992. Feckers.
    If the work was pre 1992 how do they know it doesn't have a permit (at the time)?
    I know Hamilton council doesn't have a lot of records pre 1992.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •