Meth House Hysteria

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Meth House Hysteria

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036524 14-Jun-2018 13:40

Wiggum:

MikeAqua:

gzt:

MikeAqua:

Under the tenancy agreement I signed as a Tenant. If I have/use illegal drugs on the premises, I can be be kicked out and then have to pay costs associated with clean up.

I expect this is now legally void in practice as an unreasonable condition unrelated to any actual damage.

I assume I can still be kicked out, as having illegal drugs on the premises is itself grounds for kick-out. I assume recovering clean up costs would only be possible if contamination was above the new levels - which are very high.

All academic really as there is no way I would touch that stuff and my partner wouldn't either.

All tenancy agreements normally have a clause similar to "Not use the property for any unlawful purpose".

In this day and age thats probably not enough to get the tenant kicked out. From my experience as a landlord, meth use usually goes hand in hand with unpaid rent arrears, neighbour problems, and even damage to property. Thats enough for a 14 day notice to remedy, then apply to Tenancy Tribunal for an eviction.

What is the timeframe between 14 days Notice being issued and eviction occurring do you know roughly?

How far in arrears can a tenant get before you can get a 14 days notice?

What chances does a landlord have to get rent arrears back after an eviction?

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2036552 14-Jun-2018 14:48

MikeAqua:
gzt:

MikeAqua:

Under the tenancy agreement I signed as a Tenant. If I have/use illegal drugs on the premises, I can be be kicked out and then have to pay costs associated with clean up.

I expect this is now legally void in practice as an unreasonable condition unrelated to any actual damage.

I assume I can still be kicked out, as having illegal drugs on the premises is itself grounds for kick-out. I assume recovering clean up costs would only be possible if contamination was above the new levels - which are very high.

All academic really as there is no way I would touch that stuff and my partner wouldn't either.

A landlord does not have any power of random search whatsoever so I'm not sure how that would occur in practice, unless say, the tennant was convicted of possessing drugs on the premises first.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2036556 14-Jun-2018 15:00

networkn:

What is the timeframe between 14 days Notice being issued and eviction occurring do you know roughly?

How far in arrears can a tenant get before you can get a 14 days notice?

What chances does a landlord have to get rent arrears back after an eviction?

Its best to hire a professional in cases like above. We have only had to evict one family in 10 years of owning a rental. Time line depends on may factors.

14 day notice to remedy can be sent if there is any unpaid rent. I dont think you need to wait a certain amount of days.

Getting money back is fairly straight forward if you lodged the tenants bond correctly. If however the tenant has managed to squat for weeks in your property without paying rent then chances are the bond is not going to be enough to cover any loss. Its difficult recovering money if the bond has been exhausted.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2036561 14-Jun-2018 15:12

gzt:

A landlord does not have any power of random search whatsoever so I'm not sure how that would occur in practice, unless say, the tennant was convicted of possessing drugs on the premises first.

Agreed. But the landlord is allowed to perform routine exceptions and can enter the property as long as you have given them 48hours notice. The tenant does not have to be there, and the tenant cannot refuse the expection. Legally the owner is allowed to enter the property just as long as you have provided 48hours notice.

I think its 24hours notice for repairs or any maintenance work.

Nothing stopping landlord from doing a meth swap test during one of those exceptions.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2036568 14-Jun-2018 15:29

gzt:

A landlord does not have any power of random search whatsoever so I'm not sure how that would occur in practice, unless say, the tennant was convicted of possessing drugs on the premises first.

The property was tested clear before move-in. If testing detected meth, that would indicate drug use in the premises.

Also as part of the Body Corp rules the BC has the ability to bring drug dogs into the building and it has a general right to enter units to investigate suspected breaking of BC rules, hazards etc etc.

I'm pretty sure the BC rules also prohibit illegal drugs anywhere in the building. They do prohibit smoking inside units (due to the fire sensors).

Mike

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2036582 14-Jun-2018 15:54

networkn:

frankv:

networkn:

At the end of the day you can only act on the information you are given by the experts. If you have 2 experts telling you the opposite story, in my view you take the cautious approach.

There is a third option, and that is to get more information. Especially when the cautious approach is going to cost your citizens millions of dollars. And, whilst forveness (like hindsight) is a wonderful thing, they're paid a lot of money to make the right decision, including knowing when they don't have enough information to make a good decision.

Sure, except that getting more information takes time, sometimes lots of it. As I understand it, they were told by their trusted sources that time was of the essence. Surely better safe than sorry?

I'd like to know who these anonymous "trusted sources" are. The erstwhile ministers are disclaiming responsibility on the basis that they were following these experts' advice. Surely their must be a chain of evidence (meeting minutes, etc) available showing what advice the minister was given, and when, and by whom, and the actions the minister took based on that. Millions of dollars has been spent, people have been moved out of their homes, based on what has turned out to be erroneous advice. If the minister isn't responsible (i.e. the advice they received was credible, albeit inaccurate), then whoever advised the minister must be professionally liable for giving such spectacularly bad advice, in the same way as architects are responsible if a building falls down. Oh wait, that didn't apply under National either...

And, given that people had been living in uncleaned houses for years without any apparent effects, I think that any claim of urgency is also dubious.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2037880 14-Jun-2018 20:52

frankv:

networkn:

frankv:

networkn:

At the end of the day you can only act on the information you are given by the experts. If you have 2 experts telling you the opposite story, in my view you take the cautious approach.

There is a third option, and that is to get more information. Especially when the cautious approach is going to cost your citizens millions of dollars. And, whilst forveness (like hindsight) is a wonderful thing, they're paid a lot of money to make the right decision, including knowing when they don't have enough information to make a good decision.

Sure, except that getting more information takes time, sometimes lots of it. As I understand it, they were told by their trusted sources that time was of the essence. Surely better safe than sorry?

I'd like to know who these anonymous "trusted sources" are. The erstwhile ministers are disclaiming responsibility on the basis that they were following these experts' advice. Surely their must be a chain of evidence (meeting minutes, etc) available showing what advice the minister was given, and when, and by whom, and the actions the minister took based on that. Millions of dollars has been spent, people have been moved out of their homes, based on what has turned out to be erroneous advice. If the minister isn't responsible (i.e. the advice they received was credible, albeit inaccurate), then whoever advised the minister must be professionally liable for giving such spectacularly bad advice, in the same way as architects are responsible if a building falls down. Oh wait, that didn't apply under National either...

And, given that people had been living in uncleaned houses for years without any apparent effects, I think that any claim of urgency is also dubious.

You sound like you'd like your cake and eat it too. I can just hear your outraged calls if they had it wrong the other way!

If you are so interested in the "evidence" I am sure you could make a OIO Request.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2037898 14-Jun-2018 22:05

Wiggum:
gzt:

A landlord does not have any power of random search whatsoever so I'm not sure how that would occur in practice, unless say, the tennant was convicted of possessing drugs on the premises first.

Agreed. But the landlord is allowed to perform routine exceptions and can enter the property as long as you have given them 48hours notice. The tenant does not have to be there, and the tenant cannot refuse the expection. Legally the owner is allowed to enter the property just as long as you have provided 48hours notice.

I think its 24hours notice for repairs or any maintenance work.

Nothing stopping landlord from doing a meth swap test during one of those exceptions.

Presumably a landlord has no ability to random search a tennants possessions and underwear draw or whatever randomly looking for drugs that may or may not exist.

On the testing side a positive test result is just a positive test result. It would not necessarily mean meth use. To have any credibility the test would have to be performed by an accredited lab, rates of false positive and possible contributors would have to be known, minimum detection levels and noise etc.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2037901 14-Jun-2018 22:13

MikeAqua: Also as part of the Body Corp rules the BC has the ability to bring drug dogs into the building and it has a general right to enter units to investigate suspected breaking of BC rules, hazards etc etc.

I'm pretty sure the BC rules also prohibit illegal drugs anywhere in the building. They do prohibit smoking inside units (due to the fire sensors).

Body corporate drug dogs! I have no idea how that works. Sounds extreme.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2039599 18-Jun-2018 12:38

Body corporate drug dogs! I have no idea how that works. Sounds extreme.

Independent contractor brings a drug dog through the building. Everyone is advised after it has happened. If a dog indicates an apartment, further investigations result.

This is mainly intended to deter manufacture or dealing. Was introduced about years ago when someone was dealing meth from the building.

Mike

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2039654 18-Jun-2018 13:07

Pity drug dogs tend to be wrong more often than right and have a tendency to follow the biases of their handlers

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2039693 18-Jun-2018 13:28

Varkk:

Pity drug dogs tend to be wrong more often than right and have a tendency to follow the biases of their handlers

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right

False positive's aren't problem if they are intended to be a deterrent.

Mike

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2039731 18-Jun-2018 13:38

gzt:
Wiggum:

gzt:

A landlord does not have any power of random search whatsoever so I'm not sure how that would occur in practice, unless say, the tennant was convicted of possessing drugs on the premises first.

Agreed. But the landlord is allowed to perform routine exceptions and can enter the property as long as you have given them 48hours notice. The tenant does not have to be there, and the tenant cannot refuse the expection. Legally the owner is allowed to enter the property just as long as you have provided 48hours notice.

I think its 24hours notice for repairs or any maintenance work.

Nothing stopping landlord from doing a meth swap test during one of those exceptions.

Presumably a landlord has no ability to random search a tennants possessions and underwear draw or whatever randomly looking for drugs that may or may not exist.

On the testing side a positive test result is just a positive test result. It would not necessarily mean meth use. To have any credibility the test would have to be performed by an accredited lab, rates of false positive and possible contributors would have to be known, minimum detection levels and noise etc.

No need to search for drugs. The swabs would pick up if there has been illegal drug use in the house during the tenancy.

I use these guys:

http://www.methsolutions.co.nz/

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2039760 18-Jun-2018 13:56

I am not surprised (actually I am glad) that there is an end in sight for "meth hysteria".

I saw a doco on TV years ago and the main thrust was that the thresholds were far too low. Apparently because NZ lacked a published safe for housing threshold, the defacto standard was for a lab environment, which of course needs to be squeaky clean and was over the top (not just for meth) when applied to houses. To prove their point, they tested a bunch of $5 bills and they all failed, but no one panics about having a pocket full of meth contamination.

If you ever watch that intervention show on TV they regularly show addicts in the USA puffing away on meth in the family home and no one seems bothered by contamination. They're worried about possessions being sold to fund the habit and it certainly doesn't appear that the house is destined to be condemned.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2039765 18-Jun-2018 14:02

tripper1000:

I am not surprised (actually I am glad) that there is an end in sight for "meth hysteria".

I saw a doco on TV years ago and the main thrust was that the thresholds were far too low. Apparently because NZ lacked a published safe for housing threshold, the defacto standard was for a lab environment, which of course needs to be squeaky clean and was over the top (not just for meth) when applied to houses. To prove their point, they tested a bunch of $5 bills and they all failed, but no one panics about having a pocket full of meth contamination.

If you ever watch that intervention show on TV they regularly show addicts in the USA puffing away on meth in the family home and no one seems bothered by contamination. They're worried about possessions being sold to fund the habit and it certainly doesn't appear that the house is destined to be condemned.

Big difference between Smoking Meth vs Cooking Meth.

If your house has been used as a P Lab then there is still reason for the hysteria. Personally I would not want to go and live in one. You ever watch Breaking Bad?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6