Sharing credit check info with the insurance company? Do agreements with credit check orgs allow this? Where does the privacy act come in on this? Surely the data was collected for the purposes of securing the tenancy and not for anything else.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Meth or P related - it goes here, please.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostWhich is what I suggested!
If you get an independant test done then the tenant does not need to be present.
If you do it yourself then the tenant needs to be a witness to the test.
How do they think we will deal with tenants who can not speak English or tenants who we have not met before they move into a property.
Typical school boy rules made up on the MBIE bog.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Glenn View PostHere we go again. The tribunal will be making up the law instead of following the RTA. If the RTA does not specify something like having to do tests in front of tenants why must anyone follow some unwritten law.
How do they think we will deal with tenants who can not speak English or tenants who we have not met before they move into a property.
Typical school boy rules made up on the MBIE bog.
Then you do a test after and say it has detectable Meth.
For your property - hardly independant.
Why would I trust that your before is what you say?
Anyway - I thought we were talking about creating rules rather than TT making stuff up on the fly.
Comment
-
Trust? That is the point of NZQ courses and having attained some simple but measurable standard. Our society has lots of ways we decide someone is up to standard such as driving licenses (you and everyone else has to trust their life in me by sharing a road with me).
The labs meet international measurement standards and supply the written results for others in authority to ponder.
We as a society create laws. Those laws are thought about by a lot of people before they get passed. Once they begin to be used they are tested again by judgements in court. The meanings / judgements in all real life situations test the meanings to the full extent of our intelligence. Laws are supposed to be fair and are supposed to be applied to everyone with no financial, family, nor occupational favoritism.
The moment we can buy or argue our way out of or around a law we descend into a lawless cruel society controlled by the people who have the meanest guns and biggest pocket of money.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Glenn View PostTrust? That is the point of NZQ courses and having attained some simple but measurable standard. Our society has lots of ways we decide someone is up to standard such as driving licenses (you and everyone else has to trust their life in me by sharing a road with me).
Comment
-
Landlords have vested interests in presenting evidence to the court in all instances. The court trusts us on that. The court trusts us on our rental summaries etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostSorry Glenn but you have a vested interest in the result so trust goes out the window.
If she thinks I am telling lies that is perjury. The penalty for perjury is jail.
I invite her to put me in jail for perjury.
I say at the beginning of the court case we give an affirmation to tell the truth. Why question me half way through a case about telling the truth when I have said at the beginning I would tell the truth.
The sort of things that occur often relate to the debt enforcement. I point out to adjudicator that when collecting we always take off the amount that has been refunded / collected from the tenant. That sum is added up and the collections staff accept those sums on the basis of an oath made at the time of application.
There are lots of instances when one's word just has to be accepted.
However if an applicant (as apposed to a deponent) is caught not telling the truth then fair enough throw the book at them.
Very few people understand how much the whole justice system operates on trust and various peoples "word".
I once was admonished for putting down a claim for $40 per hour for our staff cleaning costs. The adjudicator said she had told me many times that only $15 was permitted.
I pointed out for me to say the claim was $15 when in fact it was $40 would be perjury. I asked if she was doing this as some sort of trick to put me in jail.
I was awarded the $40 per hour from that day forward. The court has to either accept I am telling the truth or come up with their own facts.
It is not acceptable for the court to make up their own facts. That is the function of the other party.Last edited by Glenn; 05-04-2017, 01:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Glenn View PostThe tribunal will be making up the law instead of following the RTA. If the RTA does not specify something like having to do tests in front of tenants why must anyone follow some unwritten law.
Starting out as they mean to continue, the deception starts with the very name! If there were three adjudicators, it could truthfully be called a tribunal. But there is only one, so it's a unobunal.
That bit of semantical chicanery exposure aside, the RTA does allow these horrid Kangroo Kourt Klutzes to do much as they please, because they don't have to follow the law, just give effect to what the presiding Klutz deems to be the "general principles" of the law.
Originally posted by RTA85 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.
The other illustration you give is a good example:
The adjudicator said she had told me many times that only $15 was permitted.
Comment
-
Hi all
Just a thought given the "P" issues we have found ourselves. In my opinion for what it is worth; the the question is not weather to test for "P" or not. The question for the TT is how they manage the results of those tests and how this relates to the Act they currently manage and the decisions they make in the tenant favor regardless on the impact on others.
Example: test comes back at say 36%, so contaminated. The TT tells the LL the tenants belonging/ furniture must be returned to them or a fine will be handed out. This is against the Health departments regulations which states they must be made unusable and destroyed and the TT is provided with this information, however the TT insists and the furniture is returned
The furniture is the same day listed on trade me and sold to unsuspecting families believing they are getting a good deal rather than contaminated furniture that is a potential health hazard. The TT knows this will not end well for them so I believe they will ignore this as long as possible. Just my thoughts!
Comment
-
Originally posted by offo View PostHi all
Just a thought given the "P" issues we have found ourselves. In my opinion for what it is worth; the the question is not weather to test for "P" or not. The question for the TT is how they manage the results of those tests and how this relates to the Act they currently manage and the decisions they make in the tenant favor regardless on the impact on others.
Example: test comes back at say 36%, so contaminated. The TT tells the LL the tenants belonging/ furniture must be returned to them or a fine will be handed out. This is against the Health departments regulations which states they must be made unusable and destroyed and the TT is provided with this information, however the TT insists and the furniture is returned
The furniture is the same day listed on trade me and sold to unsuspecting families believing they are getting a good deal rather than contaminated furniture that is a potential health hazard. The TT knows this will not end well for them so I believe they will ignore this as long as possible. Just my thoughts!
Comment
-
When they got the property tested, the results came back showing residual levels of methamphetamine at 10.8 micrograms per 100cm2, more than five times Ministry of Health guidelines.
Pretty soon the insurance companies will refuse to accept claims with such a low level of P.
Then things will get interesting.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
Reading between the lines of the two articles it appears as if the owners self managed the house whilst they were in Canterbury. Sounds as if they soon figured out they had a problem tenant but did not act fast enough?
Sounds as if they tried to figure out what to do by going to Summit but still did not hand over the house to them for management.
I can see that the likely property was 52 Redwood Street but still no case with that address up on the site?
Does anyone know
Comment
-
Hi Glenn
Yes you are correct the Labs do not give rounded % results, our tests were carried out by a recommended comapny and reported by Hills and the result was acutally 36.6. Sorry to have coursed confusion.
My point is not the test results, but the fact that the TT's current rules, legislation, Act (whatever) does not comply with the health requirements process of the tennants possession in a contaminated house. If the house is considered contaminated the council send you a letter outlinning what you are required to do and of course put this on your LIM. One of the requirements is to remove, make unusable and destroy in a pre determined contamination area all the soft furnishings, paper, etc. In our case as the house was raided by the armed defenders and the tennants belonging where contained within the house.
The council tell you one thing but the TT rules aginst this. Neither the council or the TT want to take a lead but both wanted to hand out large fines. The council said if we handed back the contaminated posseions we could be fined up to 200K. Well that is what happen to us anyway
Also just as a point of interest it was the council who backed down from the TT. However the TT did find themselves in an uncomfortable postion but stated that they had no choice as they are bound by the ACT and the LL has no right to hold the tenannts possesions. The contaminated possesions were returned and as previouly stated sold on to unsupecting purchasers.
After researching many cleaning companies and taking a lot of advice I decided I would clean the house myself I contacted the council to ask where the pre determined contamination area was located to dump everything as I removed the curtains, carpets etc,and the reply was "You will have to ask a "P" cleaning company "
To date the house still stands empty as we go through this interesting process. This incident occured on the 20 July 2016 and we have choosen to look at recource from our PM and the company he works for, however one of the outcomes of a raided house is that contamination notices are placesd on entry points of the house (and this is a large home) therfore getting the quotes required to get this to court is proving difficult to say the least but we are nearly there. One expert has informed us that pulling the house down maybe an option as the cost to remidy the issue and continuing to have this on our Lim thus devaluing the property may be more than the current value. The current GV for this property is 1,160,000
i
Comment
-
Your contamination level as reported by you is higher than I have experienced. I was in tribunal last week with a very knowledgeable and helpful adjudicator. Our case was also about meth. All I would like to report is my experience. Firstly my p sampling training certificate was looked at and accepted without question.
The permitted contamination levels were intelligently described.
3 the theat of prosecution for idioticly low levels of contamination were banished.
4 the specified levels being used are now the yet to published new much higher levels.
5 no explanation was given as to why MBIE are misleading and silent on what the tribunal is now ruling on.
We had no discussion on composit versus individual tests per room. Clearly composite tests are just a nasty way of giving owners false results. The are meant to be a precursor cheaper test but have become a clever way of making moderately contaminated properties fail.
Comment
-
Unfortunately I have had to learn a lot in the past 9 months about "P" and of course in particular the manufacturing of this surge drug. I have had a lot of help from what I would describe as a "P" expert who travels all over the country attempting to help people and has not asked for one cent. In exchange we have agreed to have our story told once we reach the completion of this sorry saga. This is in the hope that other people finding themselves in these circumstances will be armed with more facts then fiction. I hope all goes well for you.
Comment
Comment