Testing makes sense

Chorus recommending that landlords get rental properties meth tested grows in the wake of a Tenancy Tribunal warning.

Friday, April 22nd 2016, 11:00AM

by Miriam Bell

Political accusations, along with this week’s release of the Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) study, mean meth contamination of rental properties has hit the news again.

In worrying news for landlords, Massey University’s annual IDMS study shows the availability of meth has increased, particularly in Auckland and Christchurch.

A police spokesperson told media that police were seeing increased meth usage “across the board”.

Meanwhile, New Zealand First has accused Housing New Zealand of breaching tenancy law by putting people into state houses without testing for meth contamination first.

The party’s social development spokesperson Darroch Ball said that, under the Residential Tenancies Act, landlords must provide a clean property.

"If landlords rent a property that is contaminated they are breaching their obligations under this law.”

For this reason, landlords should test for any signs of meth before they rent a property, Ball said.

"Landlords were warned this month by the Tenancy Tribunal that they will not be able to hide behind a lack of knowledge of meth contamination if the likelihood is overwhelming.”

As landlords.co.nz has reported, there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion about what landlords should do when it comes to meth contamination of rental properties – be it actual or potential.

However, as suggested by Ball, a recent Tenancy Tribunal decision could provide insight into the expectations of the Tribunal.

Adjudicator Mark Benvie ordered a landlord to pay over $7,500 to his former tenants to refund rent and compensate them for the disposal of their belongings after the property they were renting was found to be meth contaminated.

He found that, due to the meth contamination, the property was not fit to be lived in and the landlord had breached the implied term of the tenancy agreement that the premises were habitable.

At the same time, Benvie accepted that neither the landlord, who had bought the property just before the tenants moved in, nor his agents knew the property was contaminated.

In his ruling, he recognised the decision meant the landlord is liable for the consequences of the meth contamination of the property – despite having no knowledge of the contamination.

But Benvie said any landlord who, in 2015 or 2016, rents out his or her premises without having it tested for meth contamination at the commencement of the tenancy is taking on a large risk in a number of respects.

Those working in associated areas recommend landlords heed the warning and get their properties tested.

Independent Property Managers Association (IPMA) president Karen Withers said the association was urging their members to do meth testing after each tenancy.

This means that if any contamination is found they can identify when it occurred and it provides a baseline for the Tenancy Tribunal should they need to take action against a tenancy.

Meth Solutions director Miles Stratford said landlords should do pre and post tenancy baseline testing of properties, conduct rigorous tenant selection processes and regular inspections, and make use of a “meth minder” alarm system.

« Static rents tough for landlords

Insurance shake up »

Special Offers