Tricky that one though as it means P has been in the house, so not necessarily a false positive. Whole thing is a complete pain. Between that, the stupid rules around heating, more and more tenants rights, it's almost enough to make one look for something different!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Meth or P related - it goes here, please.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle View PostTricky that one though as it means P has been in the house, so not necessarily a false positive. Whole thing is a complete pain. Between that, the stupid rules around heating, more and more tenants rights, it's almost enough to make one look for something different!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Learning View PostAre you implying that light switchs, etc, would give a false positive? They're a surface that constantly comes into contact with hands, that in turn come into contact with faces and food. If those surfaces are contaminated above recommended "safe" levels then owners need to be aware.
RossBook a free chat here
Ross Barnett - Property Accountant
Comment
-
Actually the answer is maybe, maybe not. You would have to get a better test done to know :-).
Particularly with units and apartments it gets more complicated.
"The natural airflow through a building is from the lowest point to highest moving with rising heat. Airflow through walls and ceilings/floors is common. Meth smoked in an adjoining apartment may be sucked through outlets, switches, lighting fixtures and gaps in gib or trim. Occupants of the adjoining apartments can experience low-level meth intoxication and may become ill.
In addition a test from switches could be a good indicator that the tenant is using the drug but not at home. This in itself is useful information.
I wonder how long it will be before landlords put concealed CCTV in their rentals so they can find out for sure??????
Comment
-
Another comment about P testing:
However, Massey University school of public health senior lecturer Nick Kim said the health impact on those living in a house where the previous tenants had used P – rather than "cooking", or making it – was low.
"The risks left after smoking [meth] are not really indistinguishable from the risks you'd leave on the walls from ordinary tobacco smoking. It's down that end of the scale.""The majority of cases where meth is detected is when people have just been using it – probably more than 99 per cent of the cases.
"New Zealand's been the only country crazy enough to go testing for meth in the general community. Almost all of the other countries that I know of only test for meth where there's known to be a meth lab where someone's been making it," Kim said.
Hard to believe that NZ has got it so wrong over P use/testing.
Just shows how fear and ignorance can panic people into believing the meth testing industry misinformation.
Comment
-
-
Should we be trying to lower the damage concerns or repair costs, after all it's an illegal life destroying drug. Where's the deterrant in saying "Don't smoke P in the house but if you do there's no cleanup cost". It's like saying "Don't drink and drive or drive while suspended, but if you do we'll turn a blind eye unless you kill someone." .. oh that's right the courts already take that stance in most cases.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Learning View PostShould we be trying to lower the damage concerns or repair costs, after all it's an illegal life destroying drug. Where's the deterrant in saying "Don't smoke P in the house but if you do there's no cleanup cost". It's like saying "Don't drink and drive or drive while suspended, but if you do we'll turn a blind eye unless you kill someone." .. oh that's right the courts already take that stance in most cases.
So saying there's a cleanup cost won't matter one way or the other.
Comment
-
You have to provide 'clean' house. So, the test needs to be done before new tenant move in.
Tenant also can ask whether it was contaminated or 'used'.
Once tenancy agreement starts, you can't make tenant agree with you to do meth test unless they agree.
You can't move them out if they refuse to do it, if you do, you'll be in trouble.
Worst case, tenant who smoke P agree or even demand to the LL to do the test during the tenancy. The result is positive. The tenant then demands for compensation for renting out 'unclean' house.
I feel this is also too much lean on to 'tenant' side.Last edited by nano; 13-09-2017, 01:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nano View PostYou have to provide 'clean' house. So, the test needs to be done before new tenant move in.
Tenant also can ask whether it was contaminated or 'used'.
Once tenancy agreement starts, you can't make tenant agree with you to do meth test unless they agree.
You can't move them out if they refuse to do it, if you do, you'll be in trouble.
Worst case, tenant who smoke P agree or even demand to the LL to do the test during the tenancy. The result is positive. The tenant then demands for compensation for renting out 'unclean' house.
I feel this is also too much lean on to 'tenant' side.
Yes you have to provide a 'clean' house, and always have had to. That doesn't mean you have to test before hand.
If you are starting a new tenancy then you can include a clause to test regularly if you wish.
If you have an existing tenancy and the tenant won't agree to a test then you could issue a 90 days notice. You can, at the moment, issue a 90 days notice just about any time you wish - without reasons.
The situation hasn't changed from what it has been for a while now - you write as if this is new, it isn't.
Comment
-
I am also researching this now. My advice is different. You must have test before tenant move in otherwise no way to prove they were the cause. So doing after move in is not possible. Well can be done but not enforceable against tenant. As nano say tenant can take landlord to court for compensation for contaminated house. Is this right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by fuzzlevalve View PostI am also researching this now. My advice is different. You must have test before tenant move in otherwise no way to prove they were the cause. So doing after move in is not possible. Well can be done but not enforceable against tenant. As nano say tenant can take landlord to court for compensation for contaminated house. Is this right?
But if you know the house is clean prior you don't have to test to prove it is clean.
If you want the tenant to pay for contamination then you have to be able to show it didn't exist beforehand.
This could lead to the conclusion that the only option is to test prior and end of every tenancy - but it isn't the only option.
Comment
Comment