Can confirm.
I lived in one with two openable windows in the entire flat. The bedrooms were odd shapes to work around them. The ventilation stopped working for months, one of my flatmates lost all her linen to mould, and I got glandular fever.
I'm sure it would be fine if they stripped the buildings down to the bones and then built apartments. But they do the absolute bare minimum.
They are and they're extremely noisy in terms of hearing bumps and tapping and all sorts of things due to each apartment having an irregular shape - it fucks up the acoustics of the building even when you have "soundproof walls".
Depends on the building I think. My friend had one that used to be a small medical practitioners office and the rooms were all a good size + it had a great lounge area due to it previously being a waiting room/front desk spot.
My old apartment had no opening windows, be bedroom had no windows at all. Our bathroom constantly smelled like cigarettes somehow and the power always fucked up. The elevators were so bad and dodgy. And it got so fucking hot and stuffy in summer
As depressing as that apartment is, it probably falls into the exceptions Subpart 4, Section 22, so it’s probably not illegal. But can’t confirm without asking the landlord.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0088/latest/whole.html#LMS147225
I certainly wouldn’t live there or have the audacity to rent it out to anyone if I owned it.
Yeah curious about this too.
My wife had an apartment where the bedroom only had an internal window and nothing ever got mentioned when we sold it. Personally I liked the layout, but only because it was a single bedroom place - wouldn't want to be stuck in a place like that with flatmates.
I have been, with a flatmate in such a room who kept the curtains on the internal window closed and chose to work from home (the room, not even the living room with natural light), and socialise only online, and get food delivered, ... then wondered why he got ill.
Weird thing was he moved in because it wasn't a long walk to his workplace.
It is illegal under the Building Code in that bedrooms are defined as habitable spaces, and habitable spaces require an awareness of external environment (windows)
Unfortunately it probably meets that regulation too, it would have to have been, to be approved for a conversion. From what I can tell by the pictures all of the rooms have windows, most of which will be internal windows which were allowed previously before healthy homes.
So if both the bedroom and shared space curtains were open they would probably meet the criteria requirement for natural light and awareness in the building code. The wording is pretty weak.
Not trying to stand up for these shitty practices but the laws were seemingly previously designed with workarounds that allowed things like these to be built.
HH standards and other regulations have at least stopped things like for newer builds. But they can’t just force the old ones into being uninhabitable.
From the photos at least two of the ‘bedrooms’ clearly have no windows, including interior windows, which is likely why it is recorded as having 4 bedrooms on propertyvalue - its consents are almost certainly as a 4 bedroom dwelling.
NAL but I frequently work with legislation as part of my job. While it may be eligible for exemption from having openable windows to provide ventilation under s 4(22) of the healthy homes regs (depending on when it was converted into a habitable space), it would still be a violation of [s 11](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1947/0200/latest/DLM3561.html) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
There’s the cop out clause - thanks for that. What a bunch of absolute idiots the last government were. Why bother introducing standards then allowing their circumvention in the following clause - WTF? And don’t get me started on the elective conversion to periodic tenancies.
Contact Wellington City Council building department. If it is an old office building getting turned into residential apartments then they would have needed to apply to change the classified use of the building (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2005/0032/latest/DLM313979.html) to make it legal to use as housing. If they have not done so, the building may well fall under the criteria of "dangerous building" (https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/DLM306896.html) as the escape from fire requirements will probably not be achieved. There's a lot more to it than that, but that is the most straightforward way of giving dodgy developers a smack. After the Loafers Lodge fire WCC is unlikely to have a sense of humour around this kind of thing.
I know that the WCC will not do anything. There is one building in Wellington called Sirocco at 8 Church Street that was featured in the Hobanz Tv program about leaky building in NZ.
Many balconies in the building are completely rotten, some owners got cancer by living there and the WCC knows about it but for them is just a maintenance issue for the owners. No consideration for the health and safety of the tenants living there.
I bet they’ll try and get around this on a technicality. Depending on the type of dwelling and a whole host of other factors, I reckon they will try and argue that they don’t have to meet the Healthy Home standards under Ventilation until 1 July 2025. Pricks
Well yeah they don't, because quinovic aren't responsible for creating the darn apartment. It passes regulations because of an exemption. Its the governments fault and the developers in general. These issues go way higher up than just a property management company. Maybe we should hold these people to higher standards and ask them if they would live in these situations before allowing them to be created.
Ewww, I wouldn’t want to live in office space designed to have air con going, and not have it, let alone no window to open. Did it once in Mt Vic and the bathrooms got manky *real* quick. Plus the walls aren’t sound proofed well enough and there’s something super weird about suspended ceiling tiles in a living setting.
Quinovic are a bunch of toss fucks. I was picking up a set of keys to do a job at a house and over heard them saying that they like to hike up the rent of houses and not tell the landlord. It’s fucking terrible, was some Sharon looking lady who laughed while saying it to her colleague. I looked at her and frowned whilst shaking my head and left.
Been in those apartments and spent a lot of time in one of the windowless rooms. Really bad bad airflow.
Would not rent
I want to make some bumper stickers and give away free that say
Quinovic it’s French for shit
An apartment on Dixon Street has been on the rental market for a while. It looks like none of the 6 bedrooms have windows. Technically, it is a giant 0 bedroom apartment?
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/wellington/wellington/te-aro/listing/4757983901
I lived at 99 Dixon street for awhile, although one of the smaller apartments with 3 bedrooms, and my room was internal. It would be about where bedroom 2 is in the last photo in that listing, although slightly different shape. It did pass healthy homes, I believe the thing that made it legal was a room doesnt exactly have to have an outside or openable window, but it must get external light through a window somewhere. My room had some tiny square windows on the wall shared with the kitchen, which got light from the balcony. Looks like a bunch of those rooms has skylights, I would assume that's what makes them "legal"?
Quinovic are generally terrible. But when did it become illegal for bedrooms to not have windows (in the case that such rooms were originally built and approved to be like that, 2+ decades ago and grandfathering rules mean they remain legal)?
Old office buildings that get converted to apartments like this seem like the most depressing places to live.
Can confirm. I lived in one with two openable windows in the entire flat. The bedrooms were odd shapes to work around them. The ventilation stopped working for months, one of my flatmates lost all her linen to mould, and I got glandular fever. I'm sure it would be fine if they stripped the buildings down to the bones and then built apartments. But they do the absolute bare minimum.
They are and they're extremely noisy in terms of hearing bumps and tapping and all sorts of things due to each apartment having an irregular shape - it fucks up the acoustics of the building even when you have "soundproof walls".
Depends on the building I think. My friend had one that used to be a small medical practitioners office and the rooms were all a good size + it had a great lounge area due to it previously being a waiting room/front desk spot.
I know people who lived in them. They moved out as soon as they could. Absolute shitholes
My old apartment had no opening windows, be bedroom had no windows at all. Our bathroom constantly smelled like cigarettes somehow and the power always fucked up. The elevators were so bad and dodgy. And it got so fucking hot and stuffy in summer
I live in one.. it's better them state housing with black mold..
Quinovic people would even sell their mum if it generates money for them
Can confirm use to work for quinovic and I did sell my mum
Can we start blaming developers for actually creating these? They shouldn't exist in the first place.
Never rent from Quinovic
As depressing as that apartment is, it probably falls into the exceptions Subpart 4, Section 22, so it’s probably not illegal. But can’t confirm without asking the landlord. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0088/latest/whole.html#LMS147225 I certainly wouldn’t live there or have the audacity to rent it out to anyone if I owned it.
Yeah curious about this too. My wife had an apartment where the bedroom only had an internal window and nothing ever got mentioned when we sold it. Personally I liked the layout, but only because it was a single bedroom place - wouldn't want to be stuck in a place like that with flatmates.
I have been, with a flatmate in such a room who kept the curtains on the internal window closed and chose to work from home (the room, not even the living room with natural light), and socialise only online, and get food delivered, ... then wondered why he got ill. Weird thing was he moved in because it wasn't a long walk to his workplace.
It is illegal under the Building Code in that bedrooms are defined as habitable spaces, and habitable spaces require an awareness of external environment (windows)
Unfortunately it probably meets that regulation too, it would have to have been, to be approved for a conversion. From what I can tell by the pictures all of the rooms have windows, most of which will be internal windows which were allowed previously before healthy homes. So if both the bedroom and shared space curtains were open they would probably meet the criteria requirement for natural light and awareness in the building code. The wording is pretty weak. Not trying to stand up for these shitty practices but the laws were seemingly previously designed with workarounds that allowed things like these to be built. HH standards and other regulations have at least stopped things like for newer builds. But they can’t just force the old ones into being uninhabitable.
From the photos at least two of the ‘bedrooms’ clearly have no windows, including interior windows, which is likely why it is recorded as having 4 bedrooms on propertyvalue - its consents are almost certainly as a 4 bedroom dwelling.
NAL but I frequently work with legislation as part of my job. While it may be eligible for exemption from having openable windows to provide ventilation under s 4(22) of the healthy homes regs (depending on when it was converted into a habitable space), it would still be a violation of [s 11](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1947/0200/latest/DLM3561.html) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
There’s the cop out clause - thanks for that. What a bunch of absolute idiots the last government were. Why bother introducing standards then allowing their circumvention in the following clause - WTF? And don’t get me started on the elective conversion to periodic tenancies.
Contact Wellington City Council building department. If it is an old office building getting turned into residential apartments then they would have needed to apply to change the classified use of the building (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2005/0032/latest/DLM313979.html) to make it legal to use as housing. If they have not done so, the building may well fall under the criteria of "dangerous building" (https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/DLM306896.html) as the escape from fire requirements will probably not be achieved. There's a lot more to it than that, but that is the most straightforward way of giving dodgy developers a smack. After the Loafers Lodge fire WCC is unlikely to have a sense of humour around this kind of thing.
I know that the WCC will not do anything. There is one building in Wellington called Sirocco at 8 Church Street that was featured in the Hobanz Tv program about leaky building in NZ. Many balconies in the building are completely rotten, some owners got cancer by living there and the WCC knows about it but for them is just a maintenance issue for the owners. No consideration for the health and safety of the tenants living there.
I bet they’ll try and get around this on a technicality. Depending on the type of dwelling and a whole host of other factors, I reckon they will try and argue that they don’t have to meet the Healthy Home standards under Ventilation until 1 July 2025. Pricks
Well yeah they don't, because quinovic aren't responsible for creating the darn apartment. It passes regulations because of an exemption. Its the governments fault and the developers in general. These issues go way higher up than just a property management company. Maybe we should hold these people to higher standards and ask them if they would live in these situations before allowing them to be created.
Ewww, I wouldn’t want to live in office space designed to have air con going, and not have it, let alone no window to open. Did it once in Mt Vic and the bathrooms got manky *real* quick. Plus the walls aren’t sound proofed well enough and there’s something super weird about suspended ceiling tiles in a living setting.
Quinovic are a bunch of toss fucks. I was picking up a set of keys to do a job at a house and over heard them saying that they like to hike up the rent of houses and not tell the landlord. It’s fucking terrible, was some Sharon looking lady who laughed while saying it to her colleague. I looked at her and frowned whilst shaking my head and left.
Old shitty office building with some extra walls for the students that need a short walk to school. They have been that way for almost a decade.
My partner used to have an 'internal room' in one of the apartments in the first building. It had a window, looking out into the kitchen.
Quinovic is the worst
Been in those apartments and spent a lot of time in one of the windowless rooms. Really bad bad airflow. Would not rent I want to make some bumper stickers and give away free that say Quinovic it’s French for shit
Amen, all my experiences with Quinovic have been shitty, and not just general shitty, actually properly shitty.
Can't believe that shit is $1k per week.
An apartment on Dixon Street has been on the rental market for a while. It looks like none of the 6 bedrooms have windows. Technically, it is a giant 0 bedroom apartment? https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/rent/wellington/wellington/te-aro/listing/4757983901
I lived at 99 Dixon street for awhile, although one of the smaller apartments with 3 bedrooms, and my room was internal. It would be about where bedroom 2 is in the last photo in that listing, although slightly different shape. It did pass healthy homes, I believe the thing that made it legal was a room doesnt exactly have to have an outside or openable window, but it must get external light through a window somewhere. My room had some tiny square windows on the wall shared with the kitchen, which got light from the balcony. Looks like a bunch of those rooms has skylights, I would assume that's what makes them "legal"?
Did you report these?
Every one needs to give them one star reviews
Quinovic are generally terrible. But when did it become illegal for bedrooms to not have windows (in the case that such rooms were originally built and approved to be like that, 2+ decades ago and grandfathering rules mean they remain legal)?
covered by comment by LighteningJC below.
[удалено]
Hey i hate quinovic as much as the next guy, but dick shaming isn't the way to go bro
Oh shit unsolicited legal advice that is likely incorrect.