Rental WOF - Maybe also for owner occupied housing as well.

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Rental WOF - Maybe also for owner occupied housing as well.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#1893374 31-Oct-2017 22:40

graemeh:

mentalinc:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Guess they need full scaffolding as well for such an unsafe job?

Not necessary but they will need three people. One to hold the ladder, one to warn anyone passing by of the dangerous situation and the third to actually change the bulb.

this is how jokes start

Common sense is not as common as you think.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#1893538 1-Nov-2017 11:44

vexxxboy:

graemeh:

mentalinc:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Guess they need full scaffolding as well for such an unsafe job?

Not necessary but they will need three people. One to hold the ladder, one to warn anyone passing by of the dangerous situation and the third to actually change the bulb.

this is how jokes start

True but if it was a joke, I'd say it took five people. Person 4 holding the gopro to record the action and person 5 telling the one person doing any work how awesome they are.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1893550 1-Nov-2017 12:04

graemeh:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Can you provide a link to where this is documented, my understanding is that the h&s laws are not that prescriptive.

http://www.tenancy.co.nz/whose-responsibility-is-it-to-change-light-bulbs-tenant-or-landlord/

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1893551 1-Nov-2017 12:07

Handrails for an enclosed staircase could be a complete PITA.

For example our staircase just has enough room to get the larger items of furniture up it with a lot of fiddly manoeuvring.

If I added a handrail - no chance! It would have to be removed for anyone to move in or out of the house.

Mike

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1893684 1-Nov-2017 15:51

davidcole:

Senecio:

I'm all for minimum standards on safety items on things such as fire & smoke alarms. Beyond that a tenant has to take responsibility for renting a place that is suitable for them and their family.

The other bit I had an issue with, but we wont know the back story, is if the place failed on the porch light (like it did) why didn't the tenant notify the landlord that the bulb was out.

Since when did the land lord become responsible to replace blown light bulbs? I have always replaced them when they have blown in rentals we have tenanted.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#1893725 1-Nov-2017 16:58

nunz:

graemeh:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Can you provide a link to where this is documented, my understanding is that the h&s laws are not that prescriptive.

http://www.tenancy.co.nz/whose-responsibility-is-it-to-change-light-bulbs-tenant-or-landlord/

I'm calling bollocks, until I see the law that says that.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#1893726 1-Nov-2017 17:00

dickytim:

davidcole:

Senecio:

I'm all for minimum standards on safety items on things such as fire & smoke alarms. Beyond that a tenant has to take responsibility for renting a place that is suitable for them and their family.

The other bit I had an issue with, but we wont know the back story, is if the place failed on the porch light (like it did) why didn't the tenant notify the landlord that the bulb was out.

Since when did the land lord become responsible to replace blown light bulbs? I have always replaced them when they have blown in rentals we have tenanted.

I can see how many people might be confused but when you move in there are functioning lightbulbs and when you move out you don't remove lightbulbs (unless you're a really poor tenant) so it make sense that it is a landlord's responsibility to maintain them. I just keep a box of spares in a cupboard somewhere so tenants can replace them as needed.

The last rental I purchased was in a very sorry state so as part of the renovations I replaced all the bulbs with LEDs which should last a good few years unless someone decides to smash them.

nickb800

2735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

#1893749 1-Nov-2017 17:35

sxz:

nunz:

graemeh:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Can you provide a link to where this is documented, my understanding is that the h&s laws are not that prescriptive.

http://www.tenancy.co.nz/whose-responsibility-is-it-to-change-light-bulbs-tenant-or-landlord/

I'm calling bollocks, until I see the law that says that.

MBIE states that it's unclear where the responsibility lies

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/regular-maintenance/maintaining-the-property/#id_384374-both-landlords-and-tenants-can-be-responsible-for-light-bulbs

The tenancy.co.nz 'legal expert' makes a few other questionable statements on that article

richrdh18

232 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 102

#1894299 2-Nov-2017 15:20

I saw the Housing WOF on Stuff earlier this week, wow. I thought all they'd be concerned with would whether the home was properly insulated or not, damp and or mold issues, and heating/heat-pumps.

Failing a home due to a blown lightbulb or not having a latch on a windows is going a bit too far.

All this regulation will do is increase the rents for the tenants. As a friend of mine who is landlord said to me " I'm not the Salvation Army" so rent will go up if these WOF's become compulsory.

Handle9

11921 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1894361 2-Nov-2017 18:31

nunz:

graemeh:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Can you provide a link to where this is documented, my understanding is that the h&s laws are not that prescriptive.

http://www.tenancy.co.nz/whose-responsibility-is-it-to-change-light-bulbs-tenant-or-landlord/

Their legal expert clearly has no experience of health and safety law. There is no arbitrary height that is requires an electrician under health and safety law. This is just FUD.

Using an electrician does nothing to manage the risk of a fall.

pom532

150 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#1894418 2-Nov-2017 19:52

UHD:

dickytim:

davidcole:

Senecio:

I'm all for minimum standards on safety items on things such as fire & smoke alarms. Beyond that a tenant has to take responsibility for renting a place that is suitable for them and their family.

The other bit I had an issue with, but we wont know the back story, is if the place failed on the porch light (like it did) why didn't the tenant notify the landlord that the bulb was out.

Since when did the land lord become responsible to replace blown light bulbs? I have always replaced them when they have blown in rentals we have tenanted.

I can see how many people might be confused but when you move in there are functioning lightbulbs and when you move out you don't remove lightbulbs (unless you're a really poor tenant) so it make sense that it is a landlord's responsibility to maintain them. I just keep a box of spares in a cupboard somewhere so tenants can replace them as needed.

The last rental I purchased was in a very sorry state so as part of the renovations I replaced all the bulbs with LEDs which should last a good few years unless someone decides to smash them.

I've always taken out the lightbulbs when I moved in the past so I could keep my energy efficient light bulbs I'd purchased. Although I always made sure that I left a light bulb in place

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1911862 2-Dec-2017 01:19

The Healthy homes guarantee bill has been passed into law. But this law itself doesn't actually specify any min standards that rental homes need to comply with. It does establish a legal framework to define standards that rental homes need to comply with though.

I can see this being fun for one of the rental properties that my mother owns. As it is a downstairs 70s brick / concrete unit. The ceiling / floor between her unit and the one above is solid concrete. And the switchboard is in the centre of the unit. So the only way to get power to a heatpump, is to tap into existing circuits that are on external walls. The design of the unit means that it only has 2 external walls. (Side 1 has the garage, bedroom 1 and lounge while side 2 has dining room, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom 2). I don't know if any of the lounge or bedroom power points are on the external walls, and it would be silly to wire a heatpump to the kitchen circuits. So most likely that unit will only get some wall mount electric resistance heaters. Which won't be of any use to the tenants. And the tenants will probably complain that they look ugly, and get in the way of their furniture. And even worse, the submains cable to that unit looks to be only 6mm2 - it is protected by a 30A rewirable fuse in the common meter box. So even if you could get more cables to the switchboard, there is unlikely to be any spare capacity in that cable.

First sentence of this herald article - the government claims that the new minimum standards wont push up the price of renting. I hope they will turn out to be right, but I can see this pushing up rents. As standards committees have a habit of constantly making standards tougher, without any concern about the extra costs of complying.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1913366 5-Dec-2017 14:45

Handle9:

nunz:

graemeh:

nunz:

Any light bulb over 2.4 metres high needs a sparky to replace them under h&s laws.

Can you provide a link to where this is documented, my understanding is that the h&s laws are not that prescriptive.

http://www.tenancy.co.nz/whose-responsibility-is-it-to-change-light-bulbs-tenant-or-landlord/

Their legal expert clearly has no experience of health and safety law. There is no arbitrary height that is requires an electrician under health and safety law. This is just FUD.

Using an electrician does nothing to manage the risk of a fall.

I wonder if it is an application of the max height for steps stuff. Anything above a certain height step (300mm???) is considered a hazard and due care needs to be taken (e.g. step stools, ladders retc). As the house is a rental , that makes it a form of business. does that mean the landlord either has to do it themselves or else get a subbie (sparky) with site safe equipment and certs in to do it?

Could be application of a couple of parts of the h&s laws.

My favorite h&s was the requirement to wear a harness when you are more than 2m off the ground in a cherry picker. The strap on the harness is 3m long so I'll crater 1m before it brakes me. ... Duh!!!

Handle9

11921 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1913463 5-Dec-2017 17:29

nunz:

I wonder if it is an application of the max height for steps stuff. Anything above a certain height step (300mm???) is considered a hazard and due care needs to be taken (e.g. step stools, ladders retc). As the house is a rental , that makes it a form of business. does that mean the landlord either has to do it themselves or else get a subbie (sparky) with site safe equipment and certs in to do it?

Could be application of a couple of parts of the h&s laws.

No it's FUD and people having no understanding of what our health and safety laws mean. There is no legal requirement for a certain height to be managed there is a requirement for health and safety to be managed (a trip or fall hazard can be of any height) and that the people carrying out work are competent and qualified to undertake the work they are undertaking. Replacing a light bulb is a user serviceable part.

The duties of a PCBU are pretty well defined and there is quite a bit of applicable case law around due to the similarity of our law to Australias laws.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2186246 24-Feb-2019 11:46

And the government has announced new healthy homes standards.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/110823014/owners-of-rental-properties-have-until-2024-to-reach-healthy-homes-standards-government-announces

From the article

All rental homes will be required to:

Have a heater that can heat the main living area to 18 degrees Celsius.
Have ceiling and underfloor insulation that either meets the 2008 Building Code insulation standard, or (for existing ceiling insulation) has a minimum thickness of 120 millimetres.
Kitchens and bathrooms will be required to have extraction fans or rangehoods.
Install a ground moisture barrier to stop moisture rising into the home where there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Have adequate drainage and guttering to prevent water entering the home.
Block draughts that make a home harder to heat.

Compliance timeline:

July 1, 2021 – Private landlords must ensure rental properties comply with the healthy home standards within 90 days of any new tenancy, and all boarding houses must comply with the healthy home standards.

July 1, 2023 – All Housing New Zealand houses and registered Community Housing Providers houses must comply with the healthy home standards.

July 1, 2024 – All rental homes must comply with the healthy home standards.

Although better quality rentals are a worthy goal. If rangehoods are required to be vented outside. That could be extremely expensive for lots of properties, if the stove doesn't back onto an external wall. While those rangehoods that recirculate the air are pretty much pointless.

And if heating would consist of providing electric resistance heaters. Then that would also be pointless for tenants.

Depending on what rules they implement for properties that cannot be easily upgraded. There could end up being alot of houses that would no longer be allowed to be rented out. Which in turn would make rents more expensive.

If there is a rush to sell non compliant homes. Sure, some tenants might be able to buy instead (and good on those that do so). But the higher rents will remain until the government does something serious about reducing land costs and excessive red tape. If the rules require rangehoods vented to outside, and heating other than resistance heaters. Then lots of apartments would be non compliant. Yet a flood of apartments on the market won't help first home buyers much. As the banks almost always have stricter lending rules for them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7