Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[Bobsyouruncle]

Feel for you smoke, it's horrible at any time but when it was your own home before you can feel even more violated.

[Judy001]

You are welcome. And "violation" is too milder a word to use!!!!!!!!! I can think of many more!!! Lololol.Yes the media certainly hype this up.

[Sportsvee]

Test = you're screwed.
Don't test = you're screwed.
Great time to be a LL :-D

When testing it was explained to me that you test where air-flow areas are, ie the walls opposite doors in hallways etc.

And as for paint and wallpaper I was told that P can seep into the gib underneath. So even if you repaint/re-wallpaper it will still bleed back out from the core/gib.

But that from a company with a vested interest.

Thanks for the good info coming through though folks, it is appreciated.

On a side note, weed has been known to be laced with P to get customers hooked on it.

[Smoke on the wall]

Hi Lis

We have a similar situation to you, see "meth testing between tenants" thread currently running. I would be very interested in hearing how you got on with decontamination and did you succeed in selling the property.

Our insurance company has not come back to us yet regarding approving the claim, so we are continuing with decontamination ourselves as we have a buyer interested and have deadlines to work to. We don't have the option of taking any tenants to TT as there have been many tenants over the last 12 years, and we have no idea which tenant is responsible. I agree that testing while you still have a non contaminated house is very important for the LL's own peace of mind, but come the time that a positive result is returned I don't think a LL will have much luck getting anything back from the tenant. The insurance company is requesting a list of tenants that have rented the property and our ex PM is discussing creating a database of previous tenants that have rented properties returning a positive test. Maybe in time there will be names that "pop out" of the database leading PM to identify suspect tenants. Meanwhile the best pro active method I can see is to be vigilant and informed. Leaving the monitoring work to the PM is not going to work (even though they are paid to "manage" the property), I think LL's have to be more involved in keeping their property uncontaminated. For us personally, it was a case of "it won't happen to us" but it did happen!

[Perry]

Interesting tale here:
HNZ chasing Christchurch woman for $20,000 over P-contaminated house
18 May 2016

Housing New Zealand (HNZ) is pursuing nearly $20,000 from a Christchurch woman after P was detected in all 13 rooms of a house. In the living area – the worst affected room of 132 Emmett St, Shirley – methamphetamine contamination was 36 times the recommended safety level. Tenancy Tribunal has ordered the tenant, Amy Humphries, to pay HNZ $19,481 - the cost to test and repair the severely contaminated state house.

[Glenn]

Interesting tale here:
HNZ chasing Christchurch woman for $20,000 over P-contaminated house
18 May 2016

Yes I managed to get tribunal hearing 15/02999/CH printed out from the MOJ web site. She was evicted on 25 November 2015 from 132 Emmett Street Shirley. She owed $409 rent on the day of the hearing which was greater than 21 days in arrear.
I could not find the case awarding HNZ $20,000. So I am really interested in how the story got to Stuff. The $20000 case would have been a second application to cover the cleaning costs.
There is no way the tenant would have given it to them so clearly HNZ must be feeding their cases of interest to the stuff.
Tenancy Services are saying to random callers like me as of last week that there is an urgent need for a law change and that we should all be talking to our local MP's about the need for the law change.
Just what is going on. When I talked to Dr Nick Smith MP in January he was real keen to have a law change for the benefit of HNZ to gain quicker access to abandoned properties.
I smell a rat here. Does anyone know what is happening.
Perhaps a good thing to post on Facebook!!!!

[Perry]

When I talked to Dr Nick Smith MP in January he was real keen to have a law change for the benefit of HNZ to gain quicker access to abandoned properties. I smell a rat here.

Here or there - when chatting with the MP mentioned?

[Rustys Nut]

Meth contamination and Insurance

Has anyone had experience with claiming insurance for meth contamination?
My rental policy has 'unlawful substances' cover of up to $25,000.
The property has been tested and has come back contaminated but the insurance company seem to be stalling.
Just wondering if anyone else has had issues with insurance companies turning down claims for meth?

[Beginner1]

Who is your insurance? I heard similar story on S***E insurance.. I am with AA and Tower for my rentals. AA asked for extra $400 for drug contamination insurance of upto $30,000. Pretty expensive i thought.

[Nick G]

I don't like how it is capped, that seems about as useful as partial fire insurance

[Perry]

Keys has apprised me of something interesting. In addition to what I was originally asking about, it does seem as if it bears on this subject, too. Especially in the matter of unlawful acts by tenants. Glenn has mentioned that beyond-reasonable-doubt-evidence that a tenant is using P wont result in the TT Kangaroo Kourt Klutzes making a determination that an unlawful act has been committed, and a tenancy termination order is appropriate.

So, with that in mind, on to something else.

If a tenant assaults or threatens to assault a landlady or family member, then, pursuant to the RTA, the LL can only apply to the TT for a termination order.

However, if a LL should use force or the threat of force to enter or attempt to enter the premises while the tenant is in the premises, the LL commits an offence and is then, pursuant to the RTA, liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Note the shift in nomenclature from unlawful act to offence.

So physical harm or threat to harm the person of the LL incurs no more than an opportunity for the LL to apply for a termination order - however long that may take.

But the use of force to enter a premise (i.e. land or building) places the LL in jeopardy of a fine or imprisonment.

Who would lay the information against the LL? What would the burden of proof be? Given the use of the word offence, I presume it would have to be something determined in a District Court.

So - given who's done what - imprisonment versus the possibility of a wet-bus ticket termination order seems fairly even-handed and balanced - right?

Some references abridged for ease of comprehension

[Shalodge]

If a tenant assaults or threatens to assault a landlady or family member, then, pursuant to the RTA, the LL can only apply to the TT for a termination order.

No .. that's a criminal offence.. I suspect that the process is complaint to Police and if Police charge the tenant then the landlord can seek eviction on that ground.

However, if a LL should use force or the threat of force to enter or attempt to enter the premises while the tenant is in the premises, the LL commits an offence and is then, pursuant to the RTA, liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

There is no other suitable change under any other Act..

Russell

[BigWal]

I could not find the case awarding HNZ $20,000.

TT ruling is now up here.

Ruling was 'issued' on 27 April, but who knows how long it took to be loaded on the MoJ website.

Not sure how the adjudicator determined that "the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy". No mention of testing before the tenancy started, so I would have loved to have been at the hearing.

[Glenn]

TT ruling is now up here.

Ruling was 'issued' on 27 April, but who knows how long it took to be loaded on the MoJ website.

Not sure how the adjudicator determined that "the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy". No mention of testing before the tenancy started, so I would have loved to have been at the hearing.

Well done BigWal. That case was just loaded yesterday or today.
I have figured out how to make the MOJ site do a few tricks!!!!!
As with all learning I still have some tricks to discover. I am sure there are more.
Perhaps we should have a discussion forum on how to get the best out of the site!
On the 27 April there were 16 cases in Christchurch that have been posted on the site. Case number 4010387 (Amy Humphries) is the second to last one to be posted.
I have attempted to find another P case in Christchurch. I have even tried to find one in Nelson where I know that there was a P clean up but could not find one.
Perhaps there might be another forum member who has laboriously scrolled through all the cases and found some ???
Re "how the adjudicator determined that the contamination occurred during the tenancy" that is also a matter I have thought about a few times.
I moaned to our local adjudicator once how HNZ seemed to be able to get things awarded that I failed on.
She invited me to submit more items for approval. She even said she did not really know how many hours we spent on cleaning. Hint hint.
Since when has the tribunal been about fairness and good law applications.
One rule for HNZ another for property managers and another for the great unwashed.

[BigWal]

Thanks Glenn. I just got lucky - I like to practice researching prospective tenants. On a different note ...

On the 27 April there were 16 cases in Christchurch that have been posted on the site.

Are you able to tell me how you found this out? In particular, for a specific date, and for a specific location?

Now they've moved to the 'single reference number' system it's a lot harder to find a bunch of successive decisions (which I think is why they changed it, but maybe I'm just being cynical)