When a house is a vehicle but really a house

[donna]

Full marks to the owner on attempting to get their '2 attached units' through as a vehicle but I think they've pushed the boundaries too far with this one.

NZH article

The giveaway is the 'the stumps' - some may call foundations set up under the floor and a couple of wheels creating confusion with three groups - A district council, MBIE and a lawyer.

Clearly there's still some ambiguity on differences between tiny homes and vehicles.

cheers,

Donna

[sidinz]

I think a lot of the cases that get to court/the media are 'step too far' ones.
If it has to take 30 minutes to get it ready to get onto the road, it's not a vehicle. I also like the vehicle lights test. Every vehicle designed for regular road use has tail/indicator lights which are required for a WoF. Seems pretty fair to me, to apply that to the vehicle/not vehicle test.

IMHO if it's not designed for regular road use, it's not a vehicle.

[donna]

^^ Yes agreed. However it can be a vehicle that is not designated for public road use and if it's not going on the road it doesn't need a WOF so it doesn't need the lights etc. There's no law (to my knowledge) that says a vehicle on your section has to be roadworthy - and therefore because it isn't it's no less a vehicle.

cheers,

Donna

[John the builder]

^^ Yes agreed. However it can be a vehicle that is not designated for public road use and if it's not going on the road it doesn't need a WOF so it doesn't need the lights etc. There's no law (to my knowledge) that says a vehicle on your section has to be roadworthy - and therefore because it isn't it's no less a vehicle.

cheers,

Donna

you miss the point

this isnt about people with vehicles not wanting to be buildings. It is about Bureaucrats making a grab for these vehicles by making them buildings?

As vehicles they are chattels and owned by the purchaser, as buildings they are fixed to the land and available to the mortgagor. and improvements to site so rateable.

the government has changed the definition of building to include non powered vehicles which means that as councils adopt that national planning standard (as they have to) then your caravan will become part of the buildings on your site. (and subject to planning rules coverage setbacks etc).

The definition of building in the building act had an exception for immovable and permanently occupied vehicles. but the exception proved the rule. Again the bureaucrats are grabbing all vehicles for control and powers sake!

[sidinz]

I disagree.
A caravan is designed and built to travel around in and stay in for short periods. It has tail lights, brake lights and a WoF that checks these. It is called a caravan.

No one who builds mini houses calls them caravans. No advertising or product specification that I have ever seen does this. They call them tiny houses because they are designed and built to house someone. Throwing them on wheels and calling them a vehicle is a cynical move to avoid building regulations and other checks and balances.

Just because it can be towed (although some of them actually can't - despite having wheels they need a hiab to move them) doesn't make it a vehicle. I could chuck a garden shed or a long drop on wheels and it wouldn't be a vehicle.

I have not seen any moves to make actual caravans or house buses be classed as buildings.

[Aston]

The name "Eco Cottages" says it all.

This guy isn't doing himself any favours by getting involved in stuff like this.

He should get on with the business of building small buildings... and not buildings with a couple of pathetic little wheels underneath and trying to call it a vehicle.

I very rarely agree with Sidinz but in this case she is spot on.

[John the builder]

I disagree.
A caravan is designed and built to travel around in and stay in for short periods. It has tail lights, brake lights and a WoF that checks these. It is called a caravan.

No one who builds mini houses calls them caravans. No advertising or product specification that I have ever seen does this. They call them tiny houses because they are designed and built to house someone. Throwing them on wheels and calling them a vehicle is a cynical move to avoid building regulations and other checks and balances.

Just because it can be towed (although some of them actually can't - despite having wheels they need a hiab to move them) doesn't make it a vehicle. I could chuck a garden shed or a long drop on wheels and it wouldn't be a vehicle.

I have not seen any moves to make actual caravans or house buses be classed as buildings.

The national planning standards introduced by this government requires councils to adopt a definition of building that states;

buildingmeans a temporary or permanent movable or immovable physical construction that isa) partially or fully roofed,; and(b) is fixed or located on or in land,; butc.but excludes any motorised vehicle or other mode of transport that could be movedunder its own power.

so this definition now includes a caravan that doesnt have its own power, and in a cynical attempt to capture non buildings the buracrats have moved against all vehicles that can hace accomodation even if they are not fixed to the land,

Sidnz
the law was based on what was a vehicle and this was defined in the land trasport act as a contrivance on wheels.

you can have your own view on what is a caravan but this doent change the principle that building not fixed to land are chattels and not property.