Call to clear up meth confusion
Urgent action is needed to clarify the threshold for meth 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 have stopped testing their rental properties in between tenancies, in the seven months since a report by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (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 has reported.
But with signs from some insurers that they will only now pay out to clean properties at that higher level, landlords need greater certainty that they won’t be hit in the pocket, the companies say.
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 100cm2, set in 2017.
The state housing agency immediately set its threshold at 15mcg per 100cm2, 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 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, is advising that meth contamination at or below 15mcg is regarded as safe to live in.
But Tenancy Services is recommending 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 15mcg, 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,’’ Varcoe said.
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
‘‘There are double standards in operation.’’ Chris Varcoe, property manager
in Nelson, Stewart Henry, confirmed that some insurers had said they wouldn’t pay out for claims where meth levels were found to be below 15mcg.
While it seemed unlikely that anyone going to a tribunal could now argue that levels under 15mcg 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 cleanup 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.’’