Safe and Sanitary report

[rb10347]

Hi all,

I have reason to suspect the house I am a tenant in may not be sanitary under the building act 2004 due to the number of draughts, amount of mould and dampness in the house. Can I, as a tenant, have a safe and sanitary report conducted by a licensed company without the owners permission? If the house is deemed unsanitary, what would I need to do from there?

Cheers

[sidinz]

I don't think you understand what a 'Safe and sanitary' report is. It is designed to let a council know that unconsented works are up to building code, so they don't need to take action on them.

As for your house, houses only need to be up to the code that was in place when they were built, not the current code.

Have you made sure that you are doing what you need to do as a tenant, to minimise dampness and subsequent mould? Have you identified the source of the dampness?

https://www.energywise.govt.nz/at-home/dampness/

[Don't believe the Hype]

This guys a troll ... angry at their landlord because they didn't understand the contract they were getting in to and now looking for ways to make things difficult. People like them clog up tenancy tribunal with vexatious claims and run to the newspapers.


see his other thread and walk away.

Good luck chasing your landlord...I'd suggest investing your time in something more productive.

[rb10347]

I'm not a troll. Our Property Management Company has already wronged us. Has not provided an insulation statement, charged us key money to change the tenancy and has outlined in the tenancy agreement that we must have the carpets professionally cleaned, and we must pay $130 for the final inspection of the house. This is key money and can't be asked for. We know the PM we are dealing with is dodgy and want to cover all our bases before the hearing. It was also my understanding that they haven't gone through the correct process to change the tenancy as none of the original tenants were remaining on the contract.

[John the builder]

Sidinz
you say

I don't think you understand what a 'Safe and sanitary' report is. It is designed to let a council know that unconsented works are up to building code, so they don't need to take action on them.

As for your house, houses only need to be up to the code that was in place when they were built, not the current code.

this is not quite right.
The reason that a S and S in used for unconsented work is that this reflects that unless the building is dangerous or insanitary the council have no power to act.

Regards the second part there is no obligation for owners to maintain compliance and only that the building doesnt become dangerous or insanitary. (the excdeption that proves the rule is Compliance Schedules in commercial premises but this relates to specific code clauses that are stated on BWoF.

So a S and S report could be used to make a public disclosure statement at any time (but why would you?)

the recent changes to RTA place different obligations on LL which is more than Building Act requires

Regards the post the house would have to be seriously poor condition to be insanitary and draughts dont count, mould is arguable and dampness more than a high moisture reading. but I agree with DbtH my comments are for benefit of the LL in this case.

[Meehole]

John the Builder do you know if there is a requirement for a property to be insulated if it is a 1890's 2 storied villa with a very long commercial lease? Tenant is responsible for all repairs and maintenance and has 'flatmates' or 'boarders' to help with the rent. Property is in inner Auckland. If it does require underfloor insulation would that be the responsibility of the tenant or the landlord?

[John the builder]

if it is covered by RTA? then that act requires insulation statement but it may be impractical. You could set up a tenancy outside the RTA?

[sidinz]

I'm not a troll. Our Property Management Company has already wronged us. Has not provided an insulation statement, charged us key money to change the tenancy and has outlined in the tenancy agreement that we must have the carpets professionally cleaned, and we must pay $130 for the final inspection of the house. This is key money and can't be asked for. We know the PM we are dealing with is dodgy and want to cover all our bases before the hearing. It was also my understanding that they haven't gone through the correct process to change the tenancy as none of the original tenants were remaining on the contract.

You may not be a troll. but you are trying to bulldoze ahead on imagined rights. As per your other post, you don't have a new tenancy. Therefore, if it was begun before July 2016, an insulation statement is not required.
You were not charged 'key money' and it appears that you, once again, don't understand the terminology you are throwing around. You have been charged the fees for making changes to an existing TA, which is completely legal.
From what you have described, you aren't responsible for paying for the final inspection.
Landlords can't presuppose that carpets will need professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy unless pets are allowed and having this requirement in a Tenancy Agreement where there are no pets isn't legal. However, if the carpets are indeed dirty, you can be charged for cleaning them.

[crashy]

The "sanitary" part refers to toilet plumbing only. Unless you have raw sewage leaking into the house or grounds, it's highly unlikely to be unsanitary

[John the builder]

s123 also says potable water. adequate facilities and a roof and walls?
Meaning of insanitary building

A building is insanitary for the purposes of this Act if the building—(a)

is offensive or likely to be injurious to health because—(i)

of how it is situated or constructed; or

(ii)

it is in a state of disrepair; or

(b)

has insufficient or defective provisions against moisture penetration so as to cause dampness in the building or in any adjoining building; or

(c)

does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use; or

(d)

does not have sanitary facilities that are adequate for its intended use.

[BradFromNZ]

if it is covered by RTA? then that act requires insulation statement but it may be impractical. You could set up a tenancy outside the RTA?

You cant contract out of the RTA, it is actually a breach of the RTA

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM96415.html

[BradFromNZ]

Therefore, if it was begun before July 2016, an insulation statement is not required.

Correct

You have been charged the fees for making changes to an existing TA, which is completely legal.

This might not be the case, it could be deemed as a letting fee or another fee which could be illegal

Landlords can't presuppose that carpets will need professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy unless pets are allowed and having this requirement in a Tenancy Agreement where there are no pets isn't legal. However, if the carpets are indeed dirty, you can be charged for cleaning them.

Yes and no, carpet cleaning clauses can be in a contract regardless, however unless the carpet is not in a 'reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition' then this is an unenforceable clause, regardless of if there are pets or not

[BradFromNZ]

Hi all,

I have reason to suspect the house I am a tenant in may not be sanitary under the building act 2004 due to the number of draughts, amount of mould and dampness in the house. Can I, as a tenant, have a safe and sanitary report conducted by a licensed company without the owners permission? If the house is deemed unsanitary, what would I need to do from there?

Cheers

I would call Tenancy Services and have a chat to them. They have council contacts and can handle everything you are talking about and if you are taking tribunal action yourself they can help you

[crashy]

Having just been to tribunal, carpet cleaning is OK as a clause. Professional carpet cleaning however is not

[sidinz]

Correct



This might not be the case, it could be deemed as a letting fee or another fee which could be illegal



Yes and no, carpet cleaning clauses can be in a contract regardless, however unless the carpet is not in a 'reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition' then this is an unenforceable clause, regardless of if there are pets or not

That poster posted elsewhere which made it clear that what he was describing was exactly what I said above. He did not have a new tenancy, he took over when the previous head tenant moved on.

It is impossible to avoid pet dander getting deep into carpet piles. The next tenants may have allergies. Therefore, there is no way that a carpet will be left "reasonably clean" if pets have been in residence. It will be full of allergens. This is what makes it an enforceable clause where pets are concerned.

But this is an old thread. The OP quickly moved on when he was told the cold, hard truth.