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
21042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2036524 14-Jun-2018 13:40
Send private message

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

10872 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2036552 14-Jun-2018 14:48
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.


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.

 
 
 
 


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 2036556 14-Jun-2018 15:00
Send private message

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.


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 2036561 14-Jun-2018 15:12
Send private message

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.

 

 


5385 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2036568 14-Jun-2018 15:29
Send private message

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

2945 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 2036582 14-Jun-2018 15:54
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 


21042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2037880 14-Jun-2018 20:52
Send private message

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

10872 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2037898 14-Jun-2018 22:05
Send private message

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

10872 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2037901 14-Jun-2018 22:13
Send private message

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.

5385 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2039599 18-Jun-2018 12:38
Send private message

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

303 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 2039654 18-Jun-2018 13:07
Send private message

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

 

 


5385 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2039693 18-Jun-2018 13:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 2039731 18-Jun-2018 13:38
Send private message

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/

 

 


1037 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2039760 18-Jun-2018 13:56
Send private message

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.

 

 


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 2039765 18-Jun-2018 14:02
Send private message

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
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



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:





News »

Facebook Portal to land in New Zealand
Posted 19-Sep-2019 18:35


Amazon Studios announces New Zealand as location for its upcoming series based on The Lord of the Rings
Posted 18-Sep-2019 17:24


The Warehouse chooses Elasticsearch service
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:55


Voyager upgrades core network to 100Gbit
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:52


Streaming service Acorn TV launches in New Zealand with selection with British shows
Posted 18-Sep-2019 08:55


Bitcoin.com announces partnership with smartphone manufacturer HTC
Posted 16-Sep-2019 21:30


Finalists Announced for Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 16-Sep-2019 19:37


OPPO Showcases New CameraX Capabilities at Google Developer Days China 2019
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:42


New Zealand PC Market returns to growth
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:24


Home sensor charity director speaks about the preventable death which drives her to push for healthy homes
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:46


Te ao Maori Minecraft world set to inspire Kiwi students
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:43


Research reveals The Power of Games in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:40


Ring Door View Cam now available in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:38


Vodafone NZ to create X Squad
Posted 10-Sep-2019 10:25


Huawei nova 5T to be available 20th September
Posted 5-Sep-2019 11:55



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.