Is my attached unit unlawful and RTA void?

[Oopsiedaisies]

Man.... either get the receipted version from the council or the guy who did the report. Why is that difficult?

Man, yes I have it now

[John the builder]

and what difference does this make?

[Oopsiedaisies]

Yes , clear as mud, but not your fault as the Council have elevated their gobbledygook in relation to these matters over the years. A granny flat is also a form of minor dwelling limited to 60M sq. Granny flats do require fire rated separation,from the ones i have seen. If there is a door allowing internal access between the granny flat and the main dwelling ,then for some insane reason the council classify this as ""one single household unit occupied as one residence"", yet in many cases are charging the owner for 2 household ratings on their rates billings.

As mentioned prior their are thousands of residencies classified and rated as 2 dwellings in the one building which have been built before fire wall regulations became a standard . What of those residencies, deemed as legal at the time they were built now possibly illegal?
The new laws create a quagmire of uncertainty.

"Separate living, independent spaces" operating within a single household unit and rented out separately could possibly be subject to an irrational stance that suddenly they become illegal if rented out separately but legal if rented out to one family, who no doubt in most cases would entail the same separate privacy exclusivity arrangements for the situation at hand within their own family or friends. The whole thing becomes a charade , an affront to rationality which needs to be robustly challenged for what it is , especially if tenants happily living in such situations are financially enticed to legally challenge the bonafides of such accommodation and the Tenancy Tribunal order an entirety of rental payment refund for the duration of the tenancy.

Here here mrsaneperson

It is all a bloody mess I say. But why does the MBIE accept bonds and tenancy agreements for all these apparent unlawful abodes? Happy to put all those bonds in their coffers earning interest. Maybe next time I put my place out for rental I say it is a garage for rent with attached lounge (as it is a studio the lounge is also the bedroom) kitchen, laundry and bathroom. Enter into a lease agreement. If the lessee decides to sleep there then that's up to them. Yeah yeah, there is probably some bylaw or Act that prevents that too.....

[Davo36]

and what difference does this make?

Haven't you been saying that a safe and sanitary report - that has been accepted by the council is valuable? If a CCC can't be obtained I mean.

[John the builder]

If safe and sanitary then council cannot act under building act. My point was what does it say and does it disclose the issue we are dealing with??

Mrsaneperson....

A granny flat is also a form of minor dwelling limited to 60M sq. Granny flats do require fire rated separation,from the ones i have seen

I say not so. A granny flat is part of the household and not subject to separation so no FRR and no separate area with its max area.

[Oopsiedaisies]

Haven't you been saying that a safe and sanitary report - that has been accepted by the council is valuable? If a CCC can't be obtained I mean.

OK I spoke to the council. The safe and sanitary report, which was undertaken by the building inspection company was placed on the council file. The officer advised council filed the S and S report as a courtesy so that this information to available BUT it is no way a legal document under the BA. The officer said that possibly I could still obtain a CCC as all the issues on the notice to fix (for the CCC) were apparently undertaken. I just have a letter form the owner to the Council saying they were fixed. So either a CCC could be a possibility or alternatively a Certificate of Acceptence. I will have to talk to a Building Officer to clarify as I did not think a CCC was still a possibility (not allowed to be issued retrospectively and so CoA was the only option?). The saga continues........

[Meehole]

Can anyone point me to the Clause in the Tenancy Act that says a house must have a CCC in order for it to be rented out? I have looked but can't find anything.

[Wayne]

Can anyone point me to the Clause in the Tenancy Act that says a house must have a CCC in order for it to be rented out? I have looked but can't find anything.

I don't think anyone else can either.
If the law changes (RTA ammendment #2) then it could be all on but, as per usual, people jump the gun.

[Meehole]

I don't think anyone else can either.
If the law changes (RTA ammendment #2) then it could be all on but, as per usual, people jump the gun.

Just saw an article in the paper last week whereby a landlord had to repay his tenant $10k because his house did not have a CCC. That is what prompted me to try and find the legislation.

[Wayne]

Just saw an article in the paper last week whereby a landlord had to repay his tenant $10k because his house did not have a CCC. That is what prompted me to try and find the legislation.

All these are talked about a lot.
Some depends on the actual detail (not what people think it is about).
In one case the property was not safe and sanitary.

A CCC is just a bit of paper given at a moment in time.
At that time the house met the rules and regulations - but down the track it may not.
So these things ride on the facts of the case - and the outcome is not always fair (or seems not fair).

[Lighthouse]

It doesn't. Section 137 (4) is the clause used in the Anderson Rulings.
The RTA is just one of many pieces of legislation adjudicators can refer to.

[Wayne]

It doesn't. Section 137 (4) is the clause used in the Anderson Rulings.
The RTA is just one of many pieces of legislation adjudicators can refer to.

And the Anderson ruling has had very variable implementation by ajudicators.
Some use very well thought out reasoning for using or not - other seem to take a stab.
Anderson itself seems to have fairly narrow applicability really - but I'm not a lawyer and adjudicators are.

[Meehole]

And the Anderson ruling has had very variable implementation by ajudicators.
Some use very well thought out reasoning for using or not - other seem to take a stab.
Anderson itself seems to have fairly narrow applicability really - but I'm not a lawyer and adjudicators are.

I can't see anything in that clause that applies to a property not being able to be rented out if it doesn't have a ccc. I would have appealed and I wouldn't have sold to pay the tenant back either.

[Lighthouse]

You need to read few determinations to see how it works. Adjudicators have a legal background.

[Meehole]

You need to read few determinations to see how it works. Adjudicators have a legal background.

I took a claim to Court (Construction Contracts Act 2002) took 16 months and other party had a lawyer and I self litigated and won.
Have no respect or admiration for that profession. Also keen to take on adjudicators at TT, to the extent that I help others out when I can.