Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[north shore]

and my husband and I would like to be added too please, thanks

[Lego_Squared]

I'm a bit ambivalent about this. The landlord is not an arm of the law, nor should he be. What's next, checking the garage for unlicensed/unwarranted vehicles and expelling tenants on that basis?

The landlord's rights IMO extend to actual protection of his property, not supposition and moral judgement about what might happen on the property.

Cannabis particularly is certainly not something to get up in arms about. A majority of NZ'ers think it should be decriminalised, it's getting to the stage that it's de facto decriminalised due to its wide acceptance and embracement by society.

[Keithw]

Absolute no brainer for me, you have my support.
With all the furore over landlord being required to provide a safe and uncontaminated place for new tenants, the other side, being properly dealing with those who contaminate, must be properly dealt with.
As you say, it seems the lawmakers refuse to believe that their poor darling tenants could be in the wrong.
As Lego-Squared points out, the actual drugs detected should make a difference, but that should simply be the same schedule that get a building classed as contaminated.
Anything P related should attract immediate termination, whereas cannabis may not.
thanks for your efforts

[ParnellPro]

Drug Users & Domestic Abuse in Rentals

One property manager went to court for tenants who abused the next door neighbour. Neighbour reported there were stolen items on the property, drunken parties, transient people and someone squirted liquid out of a syringe from an open window. The tenant who reported all this moved out because she was so frightened for her own and her child's safety. All this was raised at the tribunal including arrears and the tenants were allowed to stay on. Adjudicator said a syringe out the window wasn't enough to prove drug use. It was only after the tenant was taken back to court for spiralling arrears that they were evicted. Meth test done after their eviction showed P use, but not a lab.
Just because a particular drug is embraced by certain members of society, doesn't mean it should become the norm. Because the use of P is high: should that become the norm too?

[Keys]

(mamfc)

[Perry]

Kangaroo Kourt Obfuscation and Evasion of Responsibility

Count me in, too, Glenn.

With Nick on the skids, is that likely to make matters better or worse?

And - as I've pointed out in another thread - what about section 85?

Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised

(2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

On that basis, how can this sort of determination validly apply?

The consistent rulings when clear evidence of drug use has been submitted is that they are not trained in drugs and such matters. They say that this is the function of the district court and if a prosecution at the higher court is obtained then I can make a further application to the tribunal.

The trained in drugs thing is simple smoke screen BS. That's what expert witnesses are for. I'd wager that no DC judge is trained in drugs either!

[cube]

Plus one here.

[klauster]

Thanks Glenn, I'm in

[Glenn]

I have sent another letter to Nick Smith re the private members bill of Andrew Bailey.
Could someone also write to Andrew to give your opinion of his act.

This is what I wrote.
Hi Nick

I sent you this email over the weekend. Later on I managed to find Andrew Bailey’s proposed Bill.
I have had a read through it and that is not going to address the issues that need to be sorted.
His bill is focused on one only kind of unlawful drug that beingMeth. I can assure you after having suffered from a needle injury at a rental that Meth is one of the lesser evils.
Secondly his bill is built around re gaining possession usingsection 59 of the RTA. Section 59 details when a property is uninhabitable. The whole point is landlords and society want to stop properties from becoming uninhabitable.
So sorry we want a clause in the act that permits us to deal with the issue before they get out of hand.

One other thing you are dealing with is the Osaki case. All you have to do to fix the issue is repeal section 18A of the RTA. 18A stops landlords taking out insurance to cover the tenant’s liability. Many tenants already have this cover as part of their chattels insurance but landlords cannot make them have chattels insurance. By providing a choice you remove the need for the heavy handed state control of people’s lives. We are able to deal with the events of life. Just let us get on with it the same way owner occupiers deal with it.

Regards
Glenn

[Perry]

Glen: is that Private Member's Bill text accessible via the Internet?

[BigDreamer]

Glenn, agreed and you also have our support.

Later on I managed to find Andrew Bailey’s proposed Bill.

Can you share this proposed bill please?

[Glenn]

Glenn, agreed and you also have our support.



Can you share this proposed bill please?

Here is the link.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/document/51HOH_MEMBILL269_1/residential-tenancies-methamphetamine-amendment-bill

I am not good at pasting pdf files to PT. Perhaps someone else could do this for me.
Glenn

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

I
The landlord's rights IMO extend to actual protection of his property, not supposition and moral judgement about what might happen on the property.

Meth is made of highly toxic chemicals and attracts a certain sort of circle. If I were a landlord I'd want nothing to do with anyone on meth and I'd ruthlessly evict them.

I
Cannabis particularly is certainly not something to get up in arms about. A majority of NZ'ers think it should be decriminalised, it's getting to the stage that it's de facto decriminalised due to its wide acceptance and embracement by society.

Historically, cannabis has been demonised as a "drug" but that "war on drugs" is being lost on various points including being an insult to our intelligence.

It's the same insult to our intelligence which calls synthetics or "synnies" cannabis. I tried synthetic once and never again. It's bad news and it's certainly not cannabis.

[Glenn]

Meth is made of highly toxic chemicals and attracts a certain sort of circle. If I were a landlord I'd want nothing to do with anyone on meth and I'd ruthlessly evict them.


.

So how would you go about ruthlessly or otherwise evicting someone clearly using P.

As a landlord who has had to wash the blood splattered off the wall made by someone injecting drugs into their veins I can speak with some emotion on the issue. I have also had blood gushing out of my fingers due to a syringe being embedded deeply into them. Why do I have to suffer like this and have to put up with it.
Meth is but one of lots of drugs that get used.
Why should I run the risk of a tenant hitting me with a hammer that he has hanging beside his door when selling dope.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Why should I run the risk of a tenant hitting me with a hammer that he has hanging beside his door when selling dope.

They are probably selling other stuff as well. In any case that is a prime example of why cannabis must be decriminalised - because at present there is a big criminal element involved in the production and distribution.

Speaking for myself and everyone else I know who enjoys the odd "toke" we all despise the criminal element and want nothing to do with them.