Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[Wayne]

No test before move in no comeback under any circumstance.

Which is entirely consistant with what I said.

[Wayne]

Ha you funny guy. You say

Now you say you mean what I said. You not reading what you writing.

If you know you don't want to make a claim you don't need to test.
There were 2 aspects to this little bit of thread
1 - do you have to test prior to a new tenancy to prove that the house is clean? No you don't! Just as you don't have to test for a whole lot of other things. (Remember Nano referenced a Tenancy Services article which they removed.)
2 - You do have to have tested prior if you think you want to make a claim against the tenant later - this is a fact.
But you DON'T HAVE TO TEST which is what was being asserted.
You may not want to take the risk - entirely your choice - but the law doesn't make you test.
I have 10 properties and haven't tested any. I am not breaking the law or doing anything wrong.

I stand by the 2 bits you quote (out of context) - maybe you not understand well?

(Actually re 2 this isn't quite a fact. I have a friend who rented a place to someone for 10+ years and now finds it is contaminated. The level is so high it could not be from 10 years ago so must have occured during the tenancy. Case proved without a pre-test.
Also there is the case where they tested the tenants couch (or something) which was contaminated which proved that the tenant must have done the contamination as it wouldn't have 'jumped' to the couch otherwise. Case proved without pre-test.)

[Rentex]

It is a two way street. How can a tenant prove it was 'contaminated' before they moved in if the tenant didn't do a baseline test either?

The couch test order Wayne mentions was interesting.

But then check out this order where a landlord tested smoke detectors installed after the tenant moved in.
The result was positive however the Adjudicator dismissed it saying the contractor didn't wear gloves/etc.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/126536466.pdf

[Wayne]

It is a two way street. How can a tenant prove it was 'contaminated' before they moved in if the tenant didn't do a baseline test either?

The couch test order Wayne mentions was interesting.

But then check out this order where a landlord tested smoke detectors installed after the tenant moved in.
The result was positive however the Adjudicator dismissed it saying the contractor didn't wear gloves/etc.
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search.../126536466.pdf

The 1st question - do they need to since it is the TT we are talking about?
Didn't wear gloves? That's the TT for you. How the handyman contaminated the smoke alarm because he didn't wear gloves and may have been in other houses is beyond me. His hands must have been dripping P.

[Rentex]

Incredible right?

[Perry]

But if you know the house is clean prior you don't have to test to prove it is clean.

Isn't that the nub of it? How does one move from "if you know" to provable evidence that it so, and not just a guess? (Educated or not)

[ivanp]

For instance, when a tenant is the first one living in a new build.

[Keys]

For instance, when a tenant is the first one living in a new build.

And if the builders smoked P?

[nano]

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/starting-a-tenancy/renting-affected-properties/renting-a-property-affected-by-methamphetamine-p/#496

The previous house that my new tenant lived was P tested after she left. According to the PM, P was used but not manufactured. I was informed after I took the tenant. The tenant is very difficult for me to deal with in many ways. That is why I thought about the worst case after I read the Tenancy info page.
I have recently upgraded to LL insurance - extended cover - AA - costs $30 something more per month.

[eri]

surprise, surprise, surprise

Sugar soap and elbow grease

"Any standard detergent will do. I've suggested they should use two different ones if they want to be sure, and then get it retested," he says. That's Massey University environmental chemistry expert Nick Kim's antidote to a bit of methamphetamine on your walls. It's the advice he gives frantic homeowners who ring him after their properties have tested positive for P.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11927457

[Viking]

Yep. some of the better commercial detergents make the job easier.
If you use some of them you can also spray the carpets and let them have a bit of a soak for a few hours before getting a good carpet cleaner. Not one who does cheap cleans.
Then put in a dehumidifier to make sure the carpet is dry all through.

Personally would use a Product called Redo from Supreme Cleaning Products. Used it for years and use a lot of it everyday.There is a stronger version for real dirty such as workshops. Easy to use and can be diluted for normal use and sprayed with a spray pump.
Same product that is used in SARD but more concentrated.

https://yellow.co.nz/y/supreme-cleaning-products-greerton

Have distributors in many locations where you can get the product.

[Viking]

But landlords' spokesman Andrew King, from the Federation of Property Investors, said insurers were doing fine, and it had its own plan for low-cost DIY swab testing for landlords that would do the job.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/97313073/landlords-to-meth-tester-weve-got-this-covered

King said professional meth-testing was too slow, and too expensive for landlords.
Cheap DIY testing kits can be bought for around $15 which would give landlords a "yes/no" to the presence of meth contamination in their properties.
A "yes" would then result in a company like Meth Solutions being called in to do full testing, King said.
The tests would be done in the presence of a witness, should a claim for contamination later be made.
It would give tenants confidence they were not moving into meth-contaminated homes, but also put them on notice not to smoke, or manufacture meth in the property ,or they would be caught.
King said insurers had indicated they would support the DIY plan provided landlords were properly trained, and were using government-approved testing equipment.

[Perry]

. . . insurers had indicated they would support the DIY plan provided landlords were properly trained, and were using government-approved testing equipment.

Good that the insurance industry trust the gummint like that.

As well as the meth test industry folks giving training to LLs.

[donna]

surprise, surprise, surprise

Sugar soap and elbow grease

"Any standard detergent will do. I've suggested they should use two different ones if they want to be sure, and then get it retested," he says. That's Massey University environmental chemistry expert Nick Kim's antidote to a bit of methamphetamine on your walls. It's the advice he gives frantic homeowners who ring him after their properties have tested positive for P.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11927457

So no need to spend tens of thousands of $$ in cleaning or am I missing something? Does seem a bit too good to be true but if it is then when it's common knowledge what will this information do to the clean up industry whom are doing mighty well right now?

cheers,

Donna

[eri]

no need to spend thousands

in the house of an occasional smoker

you've only got tiny particles on the surface of paint, window sills, etc

this isn't asbestos or cyanide

people draw this stuff into their lungs at 10,000? times the concentrations found on paint

and it doesn't kill them instantly because it's not that toxic

the problem was the mistake in linking "meth lab" cleaning requirements

with tiny tiny tiny trace amounts of P from smoking