[Jo Jo]

Does anyone know if you are allowed to change a sink yourself (using the existing pipes) or do you have to get a registered plumber to do it? (I've been googling to try to find out, but can't seem to find the answer - it doesn't help that the rules have changed recently and that a lot of the stuff I'm finding about building consents etc is out of date as a result...)

[andrewp]

I hope you are allowed, but did read somewhere that if it involves potable water then the answer is no. I'm guessing it depends on whether the taps are part of the sink or mounted on the wall and thus won't be touched. I'm sure Ian will be able to give us the low-down once he's on-line ;)

[Jo Jo]

I know you're allowed to change taps yourself, which suggests to me you should be able to change the sink, but I just can't find a definitive answer. But it's late - maybe I should worry about this in the morning!

[Flutterby]

hmmm, it would seem odd to me if you can't, i'll ask the family and get back to you!

[neilw71]

Just out of interest - how would anyone know?

[victoria]

Hi Jo Jo. I just woke up hubby to ask him as he's a plumber. For changing a sink you don't need a registered plumber.

[Jo Jo]

Great - thanks for the info.

[Jo Jo]

Just out of interest - how would anyone know?

Well, they wouldn't, I suppose, but it could be a problem if you came to sell your house and didn't have the relevant paperwork. But then, do plumbers give you certificates or whatever? I don't know...

[ourquest]

Well, they wouldn't, I suppose, but it could be a problem if you came to sell your house and didn't have the relevant paperwork. But then, do plumbers give you certificates or whatever? I don't know...

Hmmm, I don't think this would ever be an issue. The sum total of relevant paperwork are the plans and consents which the local council have on their records. A replacement sink in the same position as the old one is going to be indistinguishable on a house plan. It isn't something you require a drainage plan for (as one should already be on council files) unlike the installation or moving of a laundry for example.

If you have an insurance claim resulting from leakage from this sink this might be a different matter, and if you did require a registered plumber to do the installation and you hadn't used one then your insurance company might not cover you for the damage.

[Moorf]

But then, do plumbers give you certificates or whatever? I don't know...

I asked when we had bathroom put in and they just said keep the receipts for insurance and guarantee purposes... so I'd be interested to know if we should have got certs. I did get a certificate for the electric towel rail and heater installed in bathroom.

[Jo Jo]

That's interesting, thanks Moorf. I need to speak to a plumber anyway about having a toilet replaced, so I'll ask them about it when I do. Cheers.

[Jo Jo]

Hmmm, I don't think this would ever be an issue.

Well, no, it would never be an issue for me, because I wouldn't do anything myself that I wasn't allowed to by law! :)

[andy141]

Does anyone know if you are allowed to change a sink yourself (using the existing pipes) or do you have to get a registered plumber to do it? (I've been googling to try to find out, but can't seem to find the answer - it doesn't help that the rules have changed recently and that a lot of the stuff I'm finding about building consents etc is out of date as a result...)

Hi JoJo,

Hope this helps

http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/diy/diylegal-plumbing.php

Cheers,

Andy

[Jo Jo]

Hi Andy, thanks for this. I had seen that site already, but didn't find it that helpful as it is a bit vague about what counts as minor plumbing work. But thanks for thinking of me. Cheers.

[Gar1]

Just do it and say that it was like that when you bought the house.

[jess]

Council told us we could go ahead and change a bathtub as long as it was in the same place, but that if we put in a spa bath there we would need a permit. They are pretty picky about it being a like for like change. But that's your situation, so as you said, no fees for you. :clap

On a total side note -- When we were house hunting, we saw a decent place and checked the folder on it at the council. In the plans on file the kitchen was in a different place. It had been moved to another part of the house with no permits! The council staff said if we'd bought the house, we would have had to have paid thousands in fines and fees to have it certified after the fact (and that's assuming they didn't find problems.) The illegal renovation was already on their radar because of other potential buyers asking about the house. So I imagine it was hard to sell that place.

[Silverwing86]

Just do it and say that it was like that when you bought the house.

Sorry to dissillusion you Gar1, but that 'excuse' won't work in NZ. As Jess stated in the previous post, if you buy the house, don't do your homework and an issue crops up at a later time that was done by the previous owners, you WILL be held responsible :uhoh.

This is precisely why it's so incredibly important to find out as much as you can about the house you're purchasing BEFORE you purchase. LIM reports for instance, are an absolute must !

Cheers,
Silver

[cappuccino]

I concur! I just aborted a purchase when I found there were no building consents for the house since 1983 despite lots of work being done - internal walls moved; new laundry; new bathrooms etc and the house didn't match the original plans either. I just didn't want to take the risk of paying for retrospective consents or worrying about selling in the future.

[Silverwing86]

Smart move Cappuccino, simply not worth the risk !

Cheers,
Silver

[Gar1]

Sorry to dissillusion you Gar1, but that 'excuse' won't work in NZ. As Jess stated in the previous post, if you buy the house, don't do your homework and an issue crops up at a later time that was done by the previous owners, you WILL be held responsible :uhoh.

This is precisely why it's so incredibly important to find out as much as you can about the house you're purchasing BEFORE you purchase. LIM reports for instance, are an absolute must !

Cheers,
Silver

Not to be taken as seriously as it reads. I am more than well aware of the possible pit falls of such an action, can have. Should have been more clear that this was not really my attitude.

On a side not I thought that it was the PIM that would tell you if there had been consent to make a building change not the LIM

[Gar1]

However I would also point out that this was a question about changing a sink, with no mention of relocation. And it would be hard to tell when this had been done, and therefore would be assumed to be covered by the last consent.

[Gar1]

On a side not I thought that it was the PIM that would tell you if there had been consent to make a building change not the LIM

Just checked and you are correct, the LIM will list the consents.

[ourquest]

I concur! I just aborted a purchase when I found there were no building consents for the house since 1983 despite lots of work being done - internal walls moved; new laundry; new bathrooms etc and the house didn't match the original plans either. I just didn't want to take the risk of paying for retrospective consents or worrying about selling in the future.

It's a vague situation actually (not the first vagueness ever in NZ either). If you purchase a property which does not match the plans held by the council then what happens is "you inherit the problem". Which broadly means you cannot hold the vendor responsible later. If you question the council as to what "the problem" actually is, they say it might be an issue when you sell. They are clear that they cannot go around looking and checking every house, and actually make it clear that they don't pursue it. So you might find that the next purchaser doesn't want to "inherit the problem" and offers low or walks away. It's sort of a continuing vagueness.

If you do want to get additions approved then it all depends on when they were added. If it was prior to 1991 then it is usually impossible to have them approved, and also virtually unnecessary. Building consents became more controlled after this date, and then much more so after 2004. You can get a "safe and sanitary" report from a registered builder which will be lodged on your file, or if it isn't built to standard then theoretically the council will issue a notice to rectify, and you will be required to remove it or make it safe and sanitary.

Back to the sink. If it remains in the same position then yes, you can just say it was like that. There is no documentational need to do otherwise. If you move it a bit it is unlikely that a prospective purchaser would be able to tell from the plans, and the LIM wouldn't then cause an issue. The LIM doesn't interpret any information, it only presents it and it is up to the purchaser and or their solicitor to check that the plans and the structure agree.

In many cases the LIM is not actually required as all the information held by the council is available to view at any time on the council's computer. Site information such as wind zones, fault lines etc are generally available on web published council GIS systems.

Having said all of that, (and as a general example) it is a problem if there is a deck that does not have approval (required if it is more than 1 meter above ground level) and you now want to enclose the deck with a conservatory. Because the council have no records of the deck they do not know its load bearing capability and therefore won't issue consent for the conservatory (which is required if it is more than 5m2). However, if you do not have approval for the deck and you want to build a bathroom at the other end of the house (for example) then the council will not withhold consent for the bathroom because of the deck.

I'm glad I don't work at the council.

[Jo Jo]

The Department of Building and Housing has updated its publications now to reflect the changed made to the Building Act this month. A document detailing the works that are exempted from building consent requirements can be found here (http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/guide-to-exemptions.pdf).

The following work doesn't need building consent:


(ad) the alteration to existing sanitary plumbing (as defined in section 3 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976) in a dwelling (for example, replacing a bath with a shower or moving a toilet) carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:

And, I think I have found an answer to what plumbing work you are allowed to do in your own home: the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976 No 69 (as at 03 December 2007) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0069/latest/whole.html#DLM439139) says:


54 Exemption for householders

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any bylaw requiring sanitary plumbing to be done only by specified persons or classes of persons, and notwithstanding anything in this Act, the owner of any premises situated in a place to which this subsection 59 Part 6 s 55 Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976 Reprinted as at 3 December 2007 applies and occupied by him as a residence or intended residence for himself, or for himself and members of his family, may, subject to the provisions of any other enactment, personally do any sanitary plumbing in those premises, with or without the assistance of any member of his family living with him, but without the assistance of any other person.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section owner, in relation to any premises, means the person who would for the time being be entitled to receive the rack rent of the premises on his own account if the premises were let.

So, it looks as though I can change the sink myself with no problems (as Victoria said - thanks, Victoria!), and I don't need building consent for the other work I'm planning (which I'm going to get a plumber to do anyway. I know my limitations!)

[Gar1]

Clearly from the 54 Exemption for householders only men are allowed to do any plumbing. No mention of she or herself.

Probably for the best really.:exit

[ourquest]

The Department of Building and Housing has updated its publications now to reflect the changed made to the Building Act this month. A document detailing the works that are exempted from building consent requirements can be found here (http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/guide-to-exemptions.pdf).



This is all good news and very useful information, thanks! There are many relaxations contained here which help the home owner, notably the sanitary stuff as well as the ability to change internal walls (this used to be effectively restricted as walls above 2m required consent), as well as allowing outdoor coverings up to 15m2 etc etc.

[Gar1]

This is all good news and very useful information, thanks! There are many relaxations contained here which help the home owner, notably the sanitary stuff as well as the ability to change internal walls (this used to be effectively restricted as walls above 2m required consent), as well as allowing outdoor coverings up to 15m2 etc etc.

Does section (d) not state that you cannot construct or alter internal walls or walls exceeding 2 metres, without a consent.

Ahh just read section (ca), now I am confused.

[ourquest]

Does section (d) not state that you cannot construct or alter internal walls or walls exceeding 2 metres, without a consent.

Ahh just read section (ca), now I am confused.

Yes, clause d only specifically excludes internal walls as they are covered in ca, and if d included them it would overide ca (and force consent to be required) as internal walls are over 2m. More confused?

clause ca now expressely permits changes to internal walls as long as certain conditions are adhered to (those being fire escape and where structural walls are concerned). The onus is on the builder or owner to ascertain whether the changes are permitted under "building work not requiring consent".

In our own case this really is good news, as when we move into our house in November there are significant improvements we can make without waiting and without necessarily having to have it all exactly planned out in detail beforehand. There is also a saving in application fees which is substantial.

Following the earlier part of the thread, this does raise an interesting point...if existing internal walls do not match the plans then it is going to get increasingly difficult to tell whether they were changed after 16 October 2008, and this effectively retrospectively makes earlier changes acceptable. It appears to be an acceptance from the authorities that there is so much of these type of changes taking place without anyone getting negatively affected that they might as well allow it to save on arduous consent procedures. Good on them.

[Gar1]

As you say this does suggest that they have decided that there is no way they can really control this, short of closing every Bunnings & Mitre 10 et al.

I had a look at the plans for our house (built in the 60’s) last night, and there are no internal details on the plan, other than the stud walls etc. No details such as bathroom, kitchen layout.

I do like the fact that section (da) allows me to build a dam, as long as it’s not a large dam. constitutes a large dam; can I only flood one or two streets? I am now planning to build my own hydro power station.

[ourquest]

I am now planning to build my own hydro power station.

I am sure this would be fine as long as you have a certified electrician check it over before you go live...:)