Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 58666	2005-06-08 07:12:00	Way O/T : Selling a house	bartsdadhomer (80)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
362105	2005-06-09 10:27:00	IANAL, but my understanding is: If there has been unpermitted work done and that is not disclosed, the vendor is liable if there are any problems (see Fair Go tonight). Otherwise it is buyer beware, but a vendor or the agent may not lie, i.e. if asked a direct question about the possibility of flooding or the state of the block work they have to tell the truth.	Tony (4941)
362106	2005-06-09 13:19:00	So Murray P whats your handle then????? :D beetle Why beetle, it's Murray of course . Tony, un-permitted work is not necessarilly illegal per se . A TA, if it knows about it, may allow it to remain but tagged on the property file . Work, or more presicely, a structure that does not comply (with the NZ Building Code), can be illegal whether it has a building consent (permit) or not, or a a CCC or not . If you have un-permitted work/structure, then the property is likely to be harder to sell if everyone does their job correctly . As stated earlier, a consent or CCC can not be issued retrospectively . The TA may get, or allow, someone to certify a (private) structure but, at the end of the day that means didley squat expect perhaps removing a portion of any possible liability from the TA to the fool who would certify it (there are no private consent or certification entities any more, the TA remains the only entity empowered to issue those pieces of paper . Any private entity doing so will be uninsured) . Producer statements are a different thing, they are part of the process of showing compliance .	Murray P (44)
362107	2005-06-09 14:52:00	Thanks for the link to the list of building surveyors, Murray. I may well need one later in the year, if I get around to my planned house renovation/demolition or whatever - and I see they're not exactly thick on the ground in my parts..	Laura (43)
362108	2005-06-09 22:41:00	IANAL, but my understanding is: If there has been unpermitted work done and that is not disclosed, the vendor is liable if there are any problems (see Fair Go tonight). Otherwise it is buyer beware, but a vendor or the agent may not lie, i.e. if asked a direct question about the possibility of flooding or the state of the block work they have to tell the truth. Correct about lying or silence in the face of a direct question - but only if the vendor or the agent have knowledge. As to unpermitted work, years ago there was no remedy for a purchaser at all. Then the standard terms of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate were changed to include a warranty from the vendor that they have not carried out any unpermitted work. If a prior owner to that vendor had done the work, tough luck for the current purchaser. No liability for the current vendor. Recently I had a client selling a house. The purchaser discovered through the LIM process that a woodshed etc extension to the house didn't have a permit. It was at least 20 years old. No previous owner had picked this up. My client had the choice of getting a retrospective permit (impossible), knocking the extension down (breach of contract), or losing the sale. Fortunately the parties agreed to reduce the price by $1000 and go ahead. This case illustrates that it is easy to overlook illegal work, especially if it was done years ago. The most common situation in my experience is unpermitted installation of woodburners. This can void insurance so why people do it is beyond me.	Winston001 (3612)
362109	2005-06-10 11:07:00	Quite simply because a lot of people have home-made or mate-down-the-the-road-who's-a-hotshot-welder-made woodburners and the Ins. companies won't recognise them. I'm in that situashe. identity withheld.	mark c (247)
362110	2005-06-11 03:28:00	Also don't forget that regulations change over the years. So what was possible years ago may not be now. Before I installed a wood burning stove and flue into an existing fireplace hearth,and chimney, a long time ago, a phone call to the council indicated I didn't need a permit. That may or may not be the case now.	Terry Porritt (14)
362111	2005-06-12 08:43:00	Also don't forget that regulations change over the years. So what was possible years ago may not be now. Before I installed a wood burning stove and flue into an existing fireplace hearth,and chimney, a long time ago, a phone call to the council indicated I didn't need a permit. That may or may not be the case now. Fair comment Terry but you've need a permit for at least the last 20 years. And mostly burners much older than that have since been replaced.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3