Who gets a building permit, homeowner or builder?

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Who gets a building permit, homeowner or builder?

timmmay

15389 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 180979 28-Sep-2015 15:23

We had a new bathroom put in a couple of years back, in Wellington. No building permits were applied for, and I think they should've been. Who's responsible for doing this, the homeowner or the building firm?

1 | 2

3228 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395849 28-Sep-2015 15:26

Ultimately homeowner. Builder may apply as part of the contract but still homeowners ultimate responsibility. A bathroom reno may not need one depending on what was done.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

gzt

10979 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395852 28-Sep-2015 15:33

Was there a contract?

Sounddude

I fix stuff!
1788 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

Subscriber

# 1395853 28-Sep-2015 15:36

Generally the home owner, unless the builder has offered to apply on your behalf.

A Responsible builder would have asked for consent numbers and inspection details before quoting and starting - assuming the job was a RBW job.

You sure the job required a consent?

meesham

922 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 1395862 28-Sep-2015 15:53

As mentioned by others ultimately it's up to the home owner if you do need it (it will probably bite you when you go to sell the house), but you might not need one depending on what was done. I had some major renovations done to my bathroom earlier in the year but did it in a way that didn't require a consent (I didn't go for a tiled shower for example). Some details on what building work doesn't require consent can be found here

mattwnz

15269 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395879 28-Sep-2015 16:11

I believe the responsibility is with the owner. But depends on your contract with the builder as to whether they should have applied on your behalf. But the council would have needed to inspect at various stages, if you did need one. If I was you, I would check with the council to see if you did need one for the work you had done. If you are dealing with tiles and waterproof membranes it is likely does need one. I don't beleive that you can now get a code of compliance, as building consents aren't retrospective, so that potentially affects you when selling the house. So you would probably want to apply for a certificate of acceptance insteadm which means that thet the work is acceptable with the council. Although that doesn't give you as much protection, and some insurers won't cover things resulting from something unconsented. I went though this when trying to arrange insurance on a house I was interested in buying, which had parts that were unconsented.There is always the risk that the council may not approve it, or will require some changes, but better to be safe than sorry. Potential buyers may use it as an opportunity to whack 20 k + off the price if you are selling it, and some will use it as an escape to walk away. So you also want to disclose that it only has a certificate of acceptance, and not a code of compliance. But there is always the chance your work didn't need one.

timmmay

15389 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1395910 28-Sep-2015 17:17

One person supports this post

Tiled shower, August 2012, so I believe we needed consent. We used a good firm, they used a licensed tiler, and we have photos of the work to show progress. WCC says we can apply for a certificate of acceptance, which could cost $2500 - though the initial consent would've cost $1900 or so anyway. Insurance company wouldn't say one way or another whether it was an issue.

In my opinion a licensed building practitioner should've known and told us that consent was required.

I think I'd better get the certificate of acceptance. Thanks all.

Fred99

8894 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395925 28-Sep-2015 17:51

Totally nuts.
Good luck getting council to sign off. If they can't see / identify materials used and whether they've been installed correctly, then they'd be mugs to sign it off. Doing that non-destructively may be impossible.
If it does indeed cost $1900 for consent application to install a shower, then something is seriously wrong. I think I paid $600 in consents to install a logburner, that included council inspection and issuing code compliance cert.

mattwnz

15269 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395931 28-Sep-2015 17:55

timmmay: Tiled shower, August 2012, so I believe we needed consent. We used a good firm, they used a licensed tiler, and we have photos of the work to show progress. WCC says we can apply for a certificate of acceptance, which could cost $2500 - though the initial consent would've cost $1900 or so anyway. Insurance company wouldn't say one way or another whether it was an issue.

In my opinion a licensed building practitioner should've known and told us that consent was required.

I think I'd better get the certificate of acceptance. Thanks all.

LBP scheme only came in a couple of years ago, so they may not have been a LBP when you had it done. Agree that you should get the COA now, as it will avoid minimise potential issues down the track when selling. Also costs are likely to only go up in time, and it maybe more difficult to get in the future if things change with acts. A COA isn't as good as a CCC, but it is all you can really do at your end without getting the work redone, so the council can check it. So many properties have unconsented works, most of the ones I have looked at have one or more unconsented things.

timmmay

15389 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1395937 28-Sep-2015 18:02

LBP was created in 2007. I can see the project manager has been an LBP since around six months before our bathroom work was done, so that's good.

With evidence of materials used, photos of progress, and the reputation of this firm I'm hopeful they'll sign off.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1395939 28-Sep-2015 18:06

What has become of this world??

I cannot for the life of me believe that council consent is required to tile a shower.
This is council money grabbing at its finest.

richms

22729 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1395958 28-Sep-2015 18:22

2 people support this post

Because people buy houses which then leak and they cry to the council because they bought a house that leaked and then the council has to pay them because some absurd reasons.

Richard rich.ms

Benoire

1927 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 1395980 28-Sep-2015 18:30

DizzyD: What has become of this world??

I cannot for the life of me believe that council consent is required to tile a shower.
This is council money grabbing at its finest.

I'm to correct this, it is not the Council's that set this requirement, it is a consequence of the building act and code changes after the leaky home issues and is a central government matter. I know building inspectors and processing officers who would rather not deal with the more mundane aspects of home renovation but concentrate on the big ticket items that can cause trouble.

Fred99

8894 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395981 28-Sep-2015 18:31

DizzyD: What has become of this world??

I cannot for the life of me believe that council consent is required to tile a shower.
This is council money grabbing at its finest.

Several things caused it. One is that post "leaky homes" government had no power or will to hold shonky trades and suppliers to account. The trades had disappeared / gone into receivership / retired and it didn't seem fair to hunt them down and take the money back, and the suppliers are large corporates who don't have to work under the same rules the rest of us do.
Simultaneously over the past decade or so, people have grown accustomed to the idea that if something bad happens, then someone else is going to have to pay. Government doesn't like the idea of that "someone else" being them. Nor do councils. Talk to a builder about it - I suspect you'd be struggling to find one who thinks it's working well.

mattwnz

15269 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395984 28-Sep-2015 18:40

Benoire:
DizzyD: What has become of this world??

I cannot for the life of me believe that council consent is required to tile a shower.
This is council money grabbing at its finest.

I'm to correct this, it is not the Council's that set this requirement, it is a consequence of the building act and code changes after the leaky home issues and is a central government matter. I know building inspectors and processing officers who would rather not deal with the more mundane aspects of home renovation but concentrate on the big ticket items that can cause trouble.

I believe there are likely to be changes to the building act so more mundane things won't need a building consent, where a builder can self certify, and then there will be some form of central NZ insurance policy will take liability away from councils. That said, leaking tiled showers that aren't done properly can be quite a big issue, as leaking can get into the framing etc and rot it , similar to the effects of a leaky building.

mattwnz

15269 posts

Uber Geek

# 1395988 28-Sep-2015 18:47

Fred99:
DizzyD: What has become of this world??

I cannot for the life of me believe that council consent is required to tile a shower.
This is council money grabbing at its finest.

Several things caused it. One is that post "leaky homes" government had no power or will to hold shonky trades and suppliers to account. The trades had disappeared / gone into receivership / retired and it didn't seem fair to hunt them down and take the money back, and the suppliers are large corporates who don't have to work under the same rules the rest of us do.
Simultaneously over the past decade or so, people have grown accustomed to the idea that if something bad happens, then someone else is going to have to pay. Government doesn't like the idea of that "someone else" being them. Nor do councils. Talk to a builder about it - I suspect you'd be struggling to find one who thinks it's working well.

Builders don't want to be liable either, and the changes the government want make them more responsible, by getting them to certify their own work. But this is what this central building insurance system is about, which is something they do overseas. I find it amazing that councils can be so risk adverse on some things, but not on others. There also seem to be differences in what some councils do and check for, compared to other councils, and their check sheets can differ quite a bit. Some check for some things that others don't check for. The current system isn't great, but here are no perfect systems, and it is a lot better than the previous system under which many leaky buildings were built under. I am concerned though whenever politicans say that treating timber solves the problem. Because even treated timber will rot eventually and get mould, and water shouldn't be coming anywhere close to the structure timber framing. Requiring cavities on most cladding though has also helped a lot, as it allows airflow and cavity drainage behind the cavity.

1 | 2