Do you test for Meth/Ice?

Curious to see if anyone tests their properties for meth/ice with their tenants?

 

I did, but only after the tenants claimed that rooms in the house were contaminated. Had the results analysed in the Govt lab, and there was no contamination.
With this experience, and some knowledge to hand, I wouldn't choose to routinely test.

 

Interesting.

Why did they suspect contamination? Does it reflect the properties location?

Why wouldn't you choose to do it routinely? To expensive or opening a Pandora's box.

 

Just interested ,why did the tenants think that the devil mans meth was being cooked up in the property--- and at what costs did you pay to have the rooms checked for a zero reading in the results ?.

 

Towards the end of the lease, and months after the testing, the PM quizzed one of the tenants privately and now believes it was a scam, instigated by the other member of the family who was living there.
However, it may have been done with the urging of, and in collusion with, a guy who ran a decontamination business. He was the agitator in it all.
We'll never know fully.

I would only do it if I had serious concerns about the tenants, and maybe if I bought another property where the history was uncertain.
Feel confident in the history of the properties I have that there have been no meth labs in operation there.
Although smoking meth in the property may lead to residue on surfaces, it is when there has been a meth lab in place that it seems serious contamination may occur, and even then, there seems to be disagreement internationally on what constitutes contamination. When I was reading about it last year, information I found suggested that the most 'lenient' States in the USA allow for readings as much as 3 times higher than what is considered contaminated in other locations.
Of course, what the government in your own location considers 'contaminated' is the important benchmark.

Having been through the wringer with the previous spurious claim, I now feel confident in the position I am in.

Apparently the cost of the home testing kits which indicate presence of meth, is not that great. Can't remember. I don't have confidence in the reliability of the testing kits, though have never used one.
My concern is that you might end up with false positives. If it did indicate a positive, then you'd have to get a qualified analysis done anyway.

For my purposes though, I had swab kits sent from Queensland Health at the cost of $5 each (these give no immediate indication). Did swabs on two locations supposedly of concern, and then sent them off to the right department in Qld Health for analysis at $192 each. (total $384 + $10). It was the only way I felt I could confidently know if there was a problem or not. The results showed 'NIL' in one location and a negligible trace in the other location. Certainly NOT contamination.


Location - apparently meth labs can turn up in quiet suburban locations, where they won't automatically engender suspicion.

 

From a wider legal perspective- meth testing has not become more widespread in Australia for this very reason, it's unnecessarily opening Pandora's box. There really needs to be more research done, and then legislation put in place, before it becomes accepted practice.

 

And worth learning from the NZ government’s experience with public housing and needless meth testing...

 

I recently sold a property in NZ - where meth testing is more common - lo and behold a positive result.

 

C'mon mate, it is not as hard as smoke alarm testing.

So why have you guys not pushed to make it an add on service ? or is that an insensitive question ?

 

I can't understand if you're facetious or not.

 

F me,

we now have to test for Meth/Drugs now just to be compliant or to get insurance claims validated

what next?

 

You don’t have to test for meth to be compliant!

 

They are trying to make it so, had a contractor today pressuring to do testing.....

Watch out, it wont be too long before we wear that crap too......I think PMs should wear it for not doing regular and random drug testing on people they put forward to occupy our places

 

So I assume that in Aus you will get an insurance payout if your rental is positive for meth and needs decontamination even if you haven’t been testing for it at the end of each tenancy as is the case in NZ? As is pretty standard in nz I test for meth at the end of each tenancy in my nz property so insurance is still valid should a positive return come back.

As you say there is a lot of confusion about whether the current benchmark ‘positive result’ reading is dangerous at all in nz. But for as along as the insurance companies are enforcing the benchmark then it is best practice to do the testing.

 

What is worse.

A tenant who has ingested or inhaled etc ice...

Or a tenant who has breathed in fibro fibres after drilling holes in walls, or removing sheets so they could pass ice etc to each other between rooms ?

 

I am not sure @brettc does EBM cover drug testing if suspected and cleaning.......

 

I dont care for the politics behind accepting a tenant who may or may not have an ice problem, but insurance wise, another layer of bureaucracy that we have to follow just because people cant take responsibility for actions on a personal and corporate level

 

If tenants are screened, then most of it should be avoidable, apart from the ones that go off the rails during a tenancy.

I do not like things mandated either, esp if it gives PMs the shudders and then they insist on even more testing.....

But much of it is reccomendation, but somehow PMs and others see it as mandated law, water is one, smoke alarms another, drug testing would be same.

Drugs are everywhere, and law enforcement can only do so much, same for LLs I would say.

 

We had an article in our newsletter regarding meth contamination a few months ago which provides quite a bit of information. You can view it here.