Call to clear up confusion over meth contamination
Urgent action is needed to clarify the threshold for methamphetamine contamination in privately-owned homes, as fewer landlords opt to test their properties for traces of the class A drug, some property managers say.
Many landlords had stopped testing their rental properties in between tenancies, in the seven months since a report by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser (CSA), Sir Peter Gluckman, recommended a threshold for meth residue 10 times higher than the current national standard, the companies that represented tenants and landlords reported.
But with signs from some insurers that they would only now pay to clean properties at that higher level, landlords needed greater certainty they wouldn’t be hit in the pocket, the companies urged.
In September, Housing New Zealand offered compensation to 800 tenants, kicked out of their state homes after tests came back positive for the national standard of 1.5 micrograms per 100 cm2, set in 2017.
The state housing agency immediately set its threshold at 15 micrograms per 100 cm2, following the report’s recommendation.
‘‘There are double standards in operation, with the Government using their state housing stocks at the 15 level,’’ manager of Haven Property Management in Nelson, Chris Varcoe, said.
The Government had been quick to support the CSA report and should be equally as quick to clarify where homeowners’ liability stood, he said. ‘‘It is very confusing for them [homeowners] because they don’t have any specific guidelines at the moment.’’
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill No 2, which would allow for a review of the official standard, is currently before Parliament.
The Real Estate Authority meanwhile was advising that meth contamination at or below 15 mcg was regarded as safe to live in.
But Tenancy Services recommended that people, deciding whether to take a methrelated claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, consider both the current New Zealand standard and the CSA report.
Landlords who hadn’t had a post tenancy test risked having to fork out to clean up their properties if a subsequent test showed meth levels between 1.5 and 15 mcg, depending on their insurance policy cover, Varcoe said.
‘‘Some insurance companies have indicated to us that they would look at the higher amount before they would make a payout.
‘‘They would look at the individual case and where it sat; [to decide] if they would use the 15 rather than the 1.5. So if it was up to 15, I don’t think there would be a payout.’’
No insurers were available at the time of publication for comment on whether they had revised their meth policies. Insurance companies initially said they would stick by the national standard.
But the general manager for property management at Summit in Nelson, Stewart Henry, confirmed some insurers said they wouldn’t pay out for claims where meth levels were found to be below 15 mcg.
While it seemed unlikely anyone going to a tribunal could now argue levels under 15 mcg were bad for their health, a new national standard for meth smoke residue needed to be adopted, to provide greater clarity, he suggested.
‘‘The Tenancy Tribunal looks at both [levels] now, if it’s below 1.5 they’re not allowing the tenant to pay for the clean up sometimes, and on occasion they’re looking at the 15, so it’s just hard to operate within.’’
About 10 per cent of landlords were testing their properties for meth between tenancies, compared to about 40 per cent before the report came out, Henry said.
‘‘A lot of the fear’s gone. ‘‘We suggest to landlords that they check with their insurers, but ultimately it’s up to them what they do. However, if we are suspicious that a property may have contamination, we will insist that a test is done before we take it on.’’
‘‘A lot of the fear’s gone. We suggest to landlords they check with their insurers.’’ Stewart Henry Many landlords no longer test for methamphetamine between tenancies following the Gluckman report.