Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2122


  Reply # 2029877 5-Jun-2018 15:50
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

As far as the policies of when and where to test, whether the evictions were punitive (ie against users) or based on the prevailing perception of safety - I don't know.

 

 

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.  Property was tested (clear) before I moved in.

 

That all seems fair enough to me as tenant. 





Mike

18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036142 13-Jun-2018 20:15
One person supports this post
Send private message

National were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Hindsight is a wonderful thing! What if the actual results had come back as way way worse than predicted and they hadn't of resolved it the way they did? 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. It's all well and good now to sit back and tsk tsk that they didn't get it right. 

 

The alternative headline was that National didn't act fast enough and now all these poor people are sick blah blah. 

 

 

 

They have apologised they got it wrong, it's all they can or should need to do. 


Glurp
8457 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3881

Subscriber

  Reply # 2036145 13-Jun-2018 20:27
Send private message

Everyone makes mistakes. If only there was so much forgiveness for the other side.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036153 13-Jun-2018 20:36
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Everyone makes mistakes. If only there was so much forgiveness for the other side.

 

 

 

 

They have had plenty so far, I mean, we aren't rioting in the streets last time I checked?

 

Furthermore, there is acting on information you were provided which was the best and current information at the time, and well.. The other stuff.

 

 

 

 


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2036197 13-Jun-2018 21:13
Send private message

MikeAqua:

Fred99:


As far as the policies of when and where to test, whether the evictions were punitive (ie against users) or based on the prevailing perception of safety - I don't know.



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.  Property was tested (clear) before I moved in.


That all seems fair enough to me as tenant. 


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

18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036200 13-Jun-2018 21:21
Send private message

gzt:
MikeAqua:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

As far as the policies of when and where to test, whether the evictions were punitive (ie against users) or based on the prevailing perception of safety - I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.  Property was tested (clear) before I moved in.

 

 

 

That all seems fair enough to me as tenant. 

 


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

 

Why? I am assuming it's not limited to Meth, not all damage would be indirect, they could still discolour walls, cause other physical damage. 

 

 


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2036247 13-Jun-2018 22:38
Send private message

Good point. It is legal to have non-smoking conditions on rental agreements.

gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2036250 13-Jun-2018 22:41
Send private message

networkn:

gzt:
MikeAqua:


Fred99:


 


As far as the policies of when and where to test, whether the evictions were punitive (ie against users) or based on the prevailing perception of safety - I don't know.


 



 


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.  Property was tested (clear) before I moved in.


 


That all seems fair enough to me as tenant. 



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


Why? I am assuming it's not limited to Meth, not all damage would be indirect, they could still discolour walls, cause other physical damage. 


because in there is no cleanup now required after use of meth.

18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036252 13-Jun-2018 22:43
Send private message


because in there is no cleanup now required after use of meth.

 

As in there are NO environmental, visual appearance or other affects? At all!? I find that kinda hard to believe. 

 

Discoloured wall paper, shortening of paint/carpet lifespan etc?

 

 


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 2036258 13-Jun-2018 22:53
Send private message

networkn:


because in there is no cleanup now required after use of meth.


As in there are NO environmental, visual appearance or other affects? At all!? I find that kinda hard to believe. 


Discoloured wall paper, shortening of paint/carpet lifespan etc?


Going by tv there is very little visible smoke released.

Plus the amount of material burned per use is much smaller.

I believe a typical meth user buy is 0.1 gram and they get several uses from that. Could be wrong, again quantity from tv..

18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036259 13-Jun-2018 22:55
Send private message

gzt:
networkn:

 


because in there is no cleanup now required after use of meth.

 

 

 

As in there are NO environmental, visual appearance or other affects? At all!? I find that kinda hard to believe. 

 

 

 

Discoloured wall paper, shortening of paint/carpet lifespan etc?

 


Going by tv there is very little visible smoke released.

Plus the amount of material burned per use is much smaller.

I believe a typical meth user buy is 0.1 gram and they get several uses from that. Could be wrong, again quantity from tv..

 

I guess I am thinking more of cooking it than smoking it actually. 

 

I had assumed that was what it was all about anyways. Quite possibly wrong!

 

 


2494 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1219

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036481 14-Jun-2018 12:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 


18504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5292

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2036484 14-Jun-2018 12:46
Send private message

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?

 

 


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2122


  Reply # 2036501 14-Jun-2018 13:04
Send private message

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.





Mike

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472


  Reply # 2036521 14-Jun-2018 13:35
Send private message

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.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.