Buying a property that has a Dependent Persons Unit

Looking at buying a property that has a second house on the one title. The house was sanctioned by the council as a Dependent Persons Unit.

The value of the property to us is largely reliant on the second house being liable.
From my research the vendor has not been meeting the Dependent Persons Unit conditions for over a decade, as its been rented, and lived in by non Dependent Persons. If we were to buy it we would have members of the family living in the second house but they would also not be Dependent Persons.

Does anyone know what typical treatment by councils is in this case?
It's a lot of money ($2m). And I don't want the council showing up with a notice to remove the house (it is movable).

Property is in Victoria.

 

I may be wrong but isn't a dependent person someone who is simply not paying rent? Doesn't have to be a granny or a disabled person, could be someone studying a PHD in lunar medicine (takes 15 years).

 

In this case it would be two of the land owners looking to live in the DPU.

 

This comes down to whether you get caught or not . You would have zero legal legs to stand on if they discover what you are ( considering) doing and tell you to remove the dwelling.

VIC is currently reviewing its approach to secondary dwellings, and are trialing a similar scheme to what NSW already allows; which would mean that you could add a secondary dwelling up to 60M2 and rent it out separately . But it isn't in place yet... and may not ever be.

 

Fact check required?

 

what’s confusing you?

 

By the dependent unit police?

the above was what i would get 'fact checked' rather than swallow whole, especially if there isn't such a thing as dependent unit police. But we wouldn't want fact checking to get in the way of a bit of fear mongering.

 

Again - what’s confusing you ?

The OP states “From my research the vendor has not been meeting the Dependent Persons Unit conditions for over a decade, as its been rented, and lived in by non Dependent Persons”

The OP goes on to state that. “If we were to buy it we would have members of the family living in the second house but they would also not be Dependent Persons” .

Do you not understand rules around Dependent Person Units? It is a condition of their approval that they be used for dependent persons only. It is a condition of their approval that rents are not allowed to be charged . It is a condition of their approval that they be mobile dwellings . it is also a condition of their approval that they be removed if they are used for any other purpose

Now ... read my comments again. I’m not suggesting anyone will know , or act , if the OP purchases the property and fails to observe those rules . I clearly stated that it comes down to whether he gets caught / discovered / found out ... and suggested that if he were indeed busted / found out , the council could force him to remove the building and that he would have no legs to stand on - because of the conditions noted above . That’s not fear mongering. That’s fact

Now , your position implies that stuff won’t happen . But whether any of that happens is an entirely different matter . Whether council ever checks on these things is an entirely different matter . obviously the current owner ran the gauntlet and has been able to get away with it for a long time . Whether that luck or good fortune would extend to the next owner is anyone’s guess . But are you able to guarantee the OP he won’t ever be found out and forced to remove it?



Fact check indeed

 

Completely disagree .... it is fear mongering. I wouldn't be taking ur advice if it was me, i think it is unbalanced. The prospect of Council's telling someone to tear down a building bc they have a by rule is ridiculous (but does create fear), and that there is no recourse (your reference to legal legs to stand on).

U may not like it, perhaps you are not used to it. But i would recommend a fact check on ur advice.

 

Council rules and enforcement can be challenged but no guarantee that one will win and may end up being forced to tear it down and also pay legal costs. Just because they can pursue something doesn't necessarily mean they always will. That's no fear mongering, it's just taking a risk which may or may not work in your favor.

 

I would get legal / town planner advice on the specific issue as the use etc impacts its value at $2m. And be prepared to walk away.
Council can order a new owner to remove unapproved works even if constructed by a former owner and can issue penaltties for a failure to follow a order and can also escalate to land & enviro court. They can send a owner broke if they are committed to the issue.

Council decisions are usually made by independent persons in the planning area and based on planning law and may be difficult to "appeal" if its illegal. Council cant unwind illegal construction.

A property near my home has just had demolition orders and it was near new. A large child care centre. They rebuilt the former centre and called it repairs. It wasnt approved and there was no DA. This was detected when they attempted to get approval for the second lot at rear. . Stage 1 they had to demo to frame. Council are reinspecting and may still order full demolition. Loss to owner exceeds $600K and a rebuild will add a further $440K +

 

I don't think fights between a developer of commercial property and a NSW Council are relevant to the OP. You may as well say cos NZ has earthquakes you are gonna get tsunami'd or shaken in aftershocks. Not relevant.

A good way to measure risk is evaluate the most likely case (not the worst case) and go from there. If you evaluate the worst case you should moderate based on likelihood. eg. cost of worst case (say 40K) multiplied by the likelihood of council ordering demolition (zero) .......... risk is (drumroll please) ZERO.

More likely if you are not receiving rent for second house then the likelihood of everything being OK is excellent.

If you are receiving rent for the second house (not the OP example BTW) then there is a chance some 'Jobsworth' might say something, but that is about it.

 

While I agree the risk of getting caught is effectively zero...my concern would be:

1) There is an injury caused by an unapproved / illegal dwelling or extension, e.g. someone trips or an electrical fault causes a fire and kills someone...will insurance cover you?

2) Likewise, what are the criminal / civil risks involved?

I am paying a private certifier right now to get a very simple job done (two new windows cut into the external wall). The sort of work we’re having to do to get approval feels like such overkill for two freaking windows. And while the chances of this being reported are effectively zero I'm simply paranoid about the two things I mentioned above.

But maybe it's just that; paranoia. Maybe I wasted my money on the private certifier? Maybe I should just make the windows and not sit here waiting the 2-3 months it takes to go through council. I don't know. I've always been very cautious about this sort of thing but I've never really known whether I'm being too cautious.

 

New trial Granny Flat rules for Victoria


OP could the granny flat be made compliant under trial rules? (Depending on location).
I’m not aware of the latest updates after this trial period.

Otherwise as mentioned by @euro73 it would appear to be currently non compliant in Vic.

 

I note that you aren’t based in Victoria...

 

Quite interested in Vic looking for property in Melb, part time down there with family. Yes based in Qld but spreading to SA and actively trying to spread to Vic.

Did u know borders are figments of our collective imagination and in non pandemic times you can jump from one side to the other with no discernible effect on mind and body.

 

My comment was more related to the rules about DPUs in Victoria...which are very real.

 

I’ll ask a second time ... can you guarantee that?

I’ll wait

 

I think i can stand by the comment that risk is a combination of impact and likelihood.

Eg. I am risk of being asked REALLY stupid questions by REALLY cocky SOBs and because the impact is reasonably low (ie. i don't really care) and the likelihood is extremely low ( most people are either smarter - don't ask such stupid questions - or more humble than @euro73 ) i can take that risk and post freely.

Just so you can complain about my post let me add fact checking is healthly.

......... but being a ****** is just that.

 

Methinks thou doth protest too much. And now you are deflecting.... You have been asked repeatedly ( until I was blue in the face like your monkey pal ) to provide an assurance that if the OP were to purchase the property and operate the DPU outside the guidelines, there is ZERO risk to him?

I asked this of you because you accused me of fear mongering for pointing out that if caught there was a risk of being asked to remove the property , and that if asked to remove it there'd be no recourse due to the nature of DPU regulations. You've had ample opportunity to present a respectful counter argument but have been unable to do so, preferring to behave like a bogan from logan , and now you have decided that "reasonably low" risk is a good enough argument.

Little fact check for you; "reasonably low" is not the same as zero. Not even in Logan. You are implying through your arguments that the OP faces no risk. It's irresponsible...

Another little fact check for you. Forest taught us that stupid is as stupid does. The only stupid stuff you appear to be at risk of is what's being produced at the end of your fingertips throughout this thread.... for all we know you're an intelligent person but you really ought to have read my posts properly and then you really ought to have researched the rules for DPU's before you rolled out the puffed chest and upper cases. You could have totally saved yourself a lot of time. Like, totes....

Because in the end, you have arrived at the same point I made in my first post; there is a risk. Whether that risk is acceptable to you or not, is not relevant. There's a risk. Whether that risk is reasonably low or not, is not relevant. There's a risk. Whether you believe anyone would enforce the rules that create the potential risk is not relevant. There's a risk. That's precisely what I said, and now you have agreed... even if you didn't quite realise it until you read this sentence.

Thank You. Love your work.