Meth House Hysteria

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Meth House Hysteria

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#2029877 5-Jun-2018 15:50

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

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036142 13-Jun-2018 20:15

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17232 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036145 13-Jun-2018 20:27

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

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036153 13-Jun-2018 20:36

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

15196 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036197 13-Jun-2018 21:13

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.

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036200 13-Jun-2018 21:21

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

15196 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036247 13-Jun-2018 22:38

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

gzt

15196 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036250 13-Jun-2018 22:41

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.

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036252 13-Jun-2018 22:43

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

15196 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036258 13-Jun-2018 22:53

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..

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036259 13-Jun-2018 22:55

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!

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2036481 14-Jun-2018 12:41

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.

networkn

Networkn
30204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2036484 14-Jun-2018 12:46

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?

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#2036501 14-Jun-2018 13:04

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

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2036521 14-Jun-2018 13:35

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