Gosh that's a bit of a worry. We use methtestingnz.co.nz. Pretty sure they are over the Shore
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Meth or P related - it goes here, please.
Collapse
X
-
Yeah but it's one sided - what's been done to prevent tenants from smoking or baking in rentals? Are Landlords insisting on drug tests? Is it legal to get insist tenants to do a drug test? On the recent 60 mins doc a CHCH landlord talked about his upmarket rental being used for baking and the clean up costing tens of thousands.
cheers,
donnaEmail Sign Up - New Discussions, Monthly Newsletter, About PropertyTalk
BusinessBlogs - the best business articles are found here
Comment
-
Yes, very unfortunate for the owner, tenants and yourselves! Testing before purchasing is the way to go. Between tenants ideal too. Thanks for posting.Rentex Limited Property Management - Est. 1988
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisrussell View PostMy blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
north shore,
The other company who have been around for a while is Meth Solutions. Also a Fair Go video here if that helps: http://tvnz.co.nz/fair-go/july-3-5486505/videoRentex Limited Property Management - Est. 1988
Comment
-
I am a Property Manager in Whangarei and for some time I have been trying to ascertain what the standards are for meth testing. In fact there are none simply a guideline which is .5. I have called the Ministry of Health, Work & Safety, Enviroment Northland none of which could give me a definitve answer. I have spoken to several meth testing Companies who tend to test differently and also spoken to an adjudicator at the tribunal. Noone out there seems to know very much at all least of all the powers that be!!!
So I am in the middle of writing to all government ministers as this problem is so frustrating and is only going to get worse.
As a Property Manager I have advised owners that their properties must be tested between tenancies although at this stage cannot legally enforce. Many owners I suspect dont want to do it because of what might be found. Owners need to be asking their Insurers if their property is covered not do you cover. I know of a case where one insurer is refusing to accept a claim as it hasnt been proven that its a "cooking" house. I have also been told that with the new Health & Safety at Work Act that this has given us good reason to randomly test houses with tenants in situ because we have to ensure our staff, tenants & properties are safe. Included in all my tenancy agreements is a notice advising tenants that if the property they are renting tests positive they will be in court and pay for any costs. I dont care how much that might be - I will do everything possible to have any debt repaid.
Meth is a major problem & the Government needs to act fast and have some realistic laws put in place.
A "guideline" is not sufficient. One question I want answered is - " at what point does a meth house become a "cooking" house.
So if there is anyone out there that can add more I would love to hear from you. Please PM me if you have any insights.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Judy001 View PostA "guideline" is not sufficient. One question I want answered is - " at what point does a meth house become a "cooking" house.
So if there is anyone out there that can add more I would love to hear from you. Please PM me if you have any insights.
But to your main point - you are 100% correct that this needs some time and energy from our Government who are absent on this one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Viking View Post.... there are worse dangers around than something that can be cleaned fairly easily.
The financial damage which can be imposed upon the home owner is more relivant.
Comment
-
Glenn is now trained in p testing
Originally posted by Judy001 View PostI am a Property Manager in Whangarei and for some time I have been trying to ascertain what the standards are for meth testing. In fact there are none simply a guideline which is .5. I have called the Ministry of Health, Work & Safety, Enviroment Northland none of which could give me a definitve answer. I have spoken to several meth testing Companies who tend to test differently and also spoken to an adjudicator at the tribunal. Noone out there seems to know very much at all least of all the powers that be!!!
So I am in the middle of writing to all government ministers as this problem is so frustrating and is only going to get worse.
As a Property Manager I have advised owners that their properties must be tested between tenancies although at this stage cannot legally enforce. Many owners I suspect dont want to do it because of what might be found. Owners need to be asking their Insurers if their property is covered not do you cover. I know of a case where one insurer is refusing to accept a claim as it hasnt been proven that its a "cooking" house. I have also been told that with the new Health & Safety at Work Act that this has given us good reason to randomly test houses with tenants in situ because we have to ensure our staff, tenants & properties are safe. Included in all my tenancy agreements is a notice advising tenants that if the property they are renting tests positive they will be in court and pay for any costs. I dont care how much that might be - I will do everything possible to have any debt repaid.
Meth is a major problem & the Government needs to act fast and have some realistic laws put in place.
A "guideline" is not sufficient. One question I want answered is - " at what point does a meth house become a "cooking" house.
So if there is anyone out there that can add more I would love to hear from you. Please PM me if you have any insights.
There is a NZQA course on urine drug testing but not yet a NZQA course qualification on doing the pre cursor tests.
There are two tests that can be done to determine surface contamination.
The level of contamination apparently revolves around the ability to measure the contamination.
The level set specifies the contamination as so many micro grams per 100 sq cm. So all the tests consist of collecting a sample inside a 10cm x 10 cm template.
The level of certainty runs out at about 0.2 Mg/ 100. The standard is 0.5. The two test functions I was trained on was the precursor test which comes up positive if a 100 sq section is over 0.5 and is negative under this level.
If a positive is detected then an more accurate test is called for. This consists of a swab test again over a 100 sq cm template then the swab is sent off to a lab for confirmation.
The other issue is there is a NZ Standard for cleaning. My course did not cover this aspect but they did mention it.
As mentioned in an earlier post I have a mind to start doing applicant screening. This is done by doing a urine test. It is possible to do hair and saliva but the urine tests appear to be the favorite in the lab world. The problem with this is meth is expelled by the body after only three days. However THC can sit there for much longer. In my personal experience everyone who is smoking P also smokes Cannibus. Such an invasive test is a good way to get into trouble with the powers that be until someone else starts it and it becomes more common just like work place testing.
I think the work place testing has become acceptable because of the health and safety issues. Like a worker will not be able to function correctly when under the influence of drugs.
Obviously a tenant will be able to function fine as a tenant when under the influence. So the issue is the Tenancy tribunal has to decide if they are keen on avoiding cross contamination between tenants and the property. In my humble opinion the big issue is the RTA needs to specify drug taking in properties as an unlawful activity. This can be just as much as the RTA specifying having more than 0.5 micro grams per 100 cm is an unlawful act on behalf of the landlord. What is not clear to me is at what stage is it unlawful for a property to become unclean. Is for instance a landlord guilty during the the tenancy once the level of P grows over limit on the walls.
The comment was made that those companies that BOTH test and clean are suspected of winding up the fear in order to build their business.
The suggestion is made that testers and cleaners need to be separate companies.
That in my opinion means the property manager needs to do the testing.
Comment
Comment