Warrants need tweaking

The idea of a warrant of fitness for rental properties is a good one. Without it, too many houses and flats are health hazards and the children of the poor will particularly suffer. But in the meantime, as you might expect with any new scheme, there are a few teething problems. Wellington landlord Joseph Williams complains about the capital’s WOF scheme – the country’s first – and suggests it is finicky and badly focused.

He says his house failed the test because a porch light was not working and some window fittings didn’t have security stays. It passed a council inspection in 2011. Williams, who supports the WOF scheme, says the test should be improved.

He might well be right. It seems odd that a failed porch light or some missing window stays resulted in an instant fail.

The Sustainability Trust, which runs the tests, says there were ‘‘a couple of hiccups’’ when the scheme was launched and this had caused inconvenience to Williams. The Trust had refunded the $250 inspection fee. These are signs that the scheme still needs some tweaking.

However, it’s worth remembering that car warrants of fitness can also be failed for relatively trivial matters, and if a driver puts them right the warrant is generally issued for no extra cost. Something similar can be done with houses.

The rental warrants are designed to make properties not only warm and dry but also safe. It is for safety’s sake that security stays are required on high windows where a fall could be dangerous.

Perhaps there is also room for doubt whether the inspectors were adequately trained by taking a oneday course training course with Otago University, which played an important part in the development of the warrant scheme. If this was all the training they had, that doesn’t seem enough.

These are problems to be ironed out. The scheme itself, however, is important and necessary.

Seventy per cent of children in poverty live in rented properties, and research has shown that rental properties are generally in a worse state than owneroccupied homes. Rentals are more likely to be cold, damp, mouldy and dangerous.

The result is a public health hazard, with vulnerable children and adults more likely to get sick and miss days off work and school. The cost to the country is substantial. The warrant is necessary because the worst landlords won’t do the work voluntarily.

Otago University research showed the average cost of an upgrade to meet Housing NZ minimum standards was $1800 per dwelling.

Most of this cost should be tax deductible, and it is spread over a number of years (the time required between inspections). A survey of landlords found only 12 per cent would consider increasing rents if minimum standards were introduced.

So the scheme shouldn’t price rental housing out of the reach of the poor, but it will bring much-needed improvements that would boost the health of rental families, help their children succeed at school, and save the country money.

That’s a scheme worth having.

Rental WOFs should be improved but not scrapped.