MY 2011 HOUSE FAILED THE WELLINGTON RENTAL WOF

When the Wellington City Councillors unanimously approved the voluntary Warrant of Fitness (WOF) for rental properties, I believe they had good intentions. In yesterday’s Dom Post (Wednesday 18th Oct 2017), a story reported that only two landlords have taken up on the offer to apply for a rental Warrant of Fitness inspection.

One of them was me!

I am definitely in favour of higher level of standards to be imposed on landlords to maintain suitable, healthy and liveable rental properties. It’s something that should be lauded and if implemented effectively could deliver beneficial results to both landlords and renters.

However, in this instance I personally believe that the Wellington City councillors have rushed into a decision without doing extensive groundwork on policies and requirements prior to issuing the Warrant of Fitness.

The Sustainability Trust, which procured the inspection business from the council did not have the due processes and procedures in place. When I wanted a copy of the WOF, it took me 5 calls before I could receive my report from them. I was informed that the system was unable to extract information and pictures to form a report (a rather elementary excuse).

After much back and forth, they managed to provide my report on September 27 2017, unfortunately for me, I was failed on two accounts. Apparently the windows in the top floor needed security stay and the entrance porch light was not functioning.

I must state here that this rental property was built in 2010 and met the council’s code of compliance. Of course the building inspectors should have picked up the need for the window stay.

Nevertheless I have ordered for the window stay and it will be installed within the next 14 days.

My question for the councillors who signed on this issuance of Warrant of Fitness for rental properties – has anyone of them have taken this voluntary Warrant of Fitness and if not, why not?

Ps: One of my other bone of contention with the WOF was the inspection report failed to detail the assessor’s qualification. Who are these assessors and what are their qualifications? Furthermore the report was riddled with spelling errors as though it has been compiled in a hurry