What evidence-based ‘healthy home’ standards look like
Evidence-based rental property standards would require ceiling insulation to the 1978 standard, no sub-floor insulation, and nothing more, Tenancies War spokesman Mike Butler said today.
Advice to the Government obtained under the Official Information Act (See http://tenancieswar.nz/healthy-homes-legislation/) shows no support for the claim that heat pumps, extra insulation, extractor fans, draught- and moisture-proofing, which soon may be imposed under the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, would keep 10,800 children out of hospital each year.
The World Health Organisation never recommended a minimum indoor temperature, as the discussion document claimed, and the Building Research Association of New Zealand found that only 2.7 percent of renters thought their dwelling was cold and damp, which is hardly a crisis, Mr Butler said. (See The proposed healthy homes regulations: an assessment http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documentlist)
We already have standards for rental property and if Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford followed advice, the standards he would confirm under regulation would be thus:
• Heating: A tenant should be able to use whatever he or she chooses to plug in so long as it is safe. Both fixed and portable heaters can deliver sufficient warmth. Last year, Housing New Zealand found that a number of tenants would not use 15,000 fixed heaters recently installed because they were not what they were used to. (see http://tenancieswar.nz/2018/10/09/complaints-show-problem-with-heaters-in-rentals/?fbclid=IwAR3uFj9j1V95oRmjDl1Q_TbFpWNXJxXMfpFtJO1aWezlB-JxOxipfoG2PxE ) The high price of electricity is the greatest barrier to poor people turning on the heater, not the presence or absence of a heater. Wood-burners are useful for those who prefer a fire.
• Insulation: Ceiling insulation to the 1978 standard of R1.9 for most of the North Island should be the standard because it has the greatest impact and anything over that has diminishing cost-effectiveness. Underfloor insulation is a waste of money because it hardly reduces heat loss. Owners forced to install it should be compensated.
• Ventilation: Windows that may be opened is a basic standard of ventilation and have been required since 1947 under Home Improvement Regulations of that year. There is no solid evidence that mould is a serious issue in rental properties.
• Draught-proofing: Residents will protect themselves from draughts when they need to and any serious issues may be remedied through discussion with the owner. Requiring draught-stopping tape in gaps greater than 3mm in 588,700 rental properties is absurd.
• Moisture-proofing: No evidence has been offered to prove all rental properties suffer from rising damp. The evidence is that 2.7 percent are perceived as cold and damp. Dampness problems are remedied by discussion with the owner or through the Tenancy Tribunal.
The outrageous $4000 dob-in-your landlord incentive imposed by the previous government should be dropped, he said.
The attempt to blame housing-related hospitalisations of 10,800 children annually on the condition of 588,700 rental properties while ignoring 1.1 million owner-occupied properties and not accounting for overcrowding is deceitful, he said.
Up to $7000 of extra spending per property may be required if every rental property required a heat pump, extra insulation, extractor fans, as well as the suggested draught-proofing and moisture proofing and this would have little benefit, Mr Butler said. (See http://tenancieswar.nz/2018/11/)
The money for extra compliance can only come by way of a rent increase from the tenant who is in effect being forced into buying extra appliances and building material without necessarily wanting it, he said.
A more-effective way ahead should be driven by owners and tenants in which any issues with heating, insulation, ventilation, draught- and moisture proofing could be sorted out by agreement, he said.
Stop the War on Tenancies is a group that since last October has been highlighting the evidence that successive governments have ignored while creating rental property policy.