We continue our series of meth contamination case studies – all of these have been collected by MethSolutions’ staff while out on testing and sampling jobs.
Example 1 – Auckland North Shore
Professionally managed property with suspicions of a tenant involved with meth-related activity. Regular inspections and extra diligence on the part of the property manager failed to identify the problem.
With no policies in place, the property was rented out to a new tenant who complained of feeling unwell. Baseline test was completed and confirmed presence of meth residues at levels consistent with manufacture.
Example 2 – South Auckland
A prospective purchaser gets a meth test done on an ex-rental with an apparently rushed paint job. As a first home buyer, they made the connection between this history and possible meth risk that the licensee selling the property did not. Meth present at 2.1µg. Our records suggest that + 90% of the time a property with this level of meth in a composite will exceed currently acceptable Guideline levels.
The property had been tested by MethSolutions 3 months prior to the latest test. The vendor appears not to have disclosed this to the agent. At this time, the meth levels recorded were 12.9µg. Property sold following an infield meth test.
Example 3 – West Auckland
A Landlord had concerns about a property despite long-term tenants. A test was done prior to renovation to rule out possible meth risk and subsequent complications with a meth affected property. Results showed meth present at 22µg.
Prompt action by the Landlord means the costs of remediation will be kept down. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 4 – Hamilton
Tenanted property identified with meth levels that peaked at 10µg. Insurers confirmed cover and took over handling of the claim. Detailed testing and clean up were completed and an estimate of cost to reinstate on a like for like basis obtained.
Shortly before the reinstate work was due to commence, the insurer realize they could limit cover to $25,000. Costs incurred on owners behalf by the insurer’s representatives:
• Detailed forensic testing – $11,000
• Decontamination – $32,000
• Reinstatement – $138,000
• Total cost of loss – $181,000
The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 5 – Tauranga
A small flat was tested as part of pre-purchase due diligence. Meth found present at 4.9µg. The property is one of 3 on a title. It is the second we have tested and the second that came with a free meth problem that was only avoided by getting a meth test done.
Clusters of meth affected properties are not unusual
A commercial clean and follow up In Field testing still identified problems. People were advised to give it a clean themselves and paint over the problem.
Emotional desire to have a home results in poor decision making!
Example 6 – Ohakune
State house being sold was tested as part of a pre-purchase due diligence process. Property had been repainted and carpeted. Positive for meth at levels suggesting high use. Presence of fresh paint possibly masked a more significant underlying issue.
Property was withdrawn from sale and prospective purchaser dodged a bullet.
Example 7 – King Country
Property up for sale by mortgagee. History of drug-related activity at the property. Baseline meth test identified presence of meth at levels which indicate manufacture had taken place.
Mortgagor bank is able to market the property with full disclosure and avoid the risk of information becoming available during the course of the sale which embarrasses and damages the brand.
Example 8 New Plymouth
Baseline meth test conducted following concerns regarding the behaviour of a family member. Results indicated the presence of meth at levels indicative of manufacture.
The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 9 – Whakatane
Owner of a privately managed property is advised of suspicious drug-related activity at their property. Confronts the tenant who insists they have done nothing.
Meth is found to be present at levels which indicate high risk of manufacture. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 10 – Hawkes Bay
Neighbours reported suspicious activity to the property manager. Property Manager commissioned a meth test when tenants vacated. Identified levels of meth which indicate high levels of use related activity at the property
The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 11 – Manawatu
Older couple buy their dream retirement home from the same real estate company that had previously managed the property. Neighbours advise new owners of meth history shortly after moving in. Massive community effort comes to the aide of the couple and they get their home back without feeling the full effects of the financial loss.
Example 12 – Palmerston North
Young couple with children buy a property from a real estate company that had managed the rental. On moving in a meth pipe is discovered in the recycling bin. +$2,000 of meth testing reveals high levels of residues throughout the property. New owner relocates while +$12,000 of remediation work is undertaken.
Footnotes –
• New owners paid market rate for a meth-contaminated property.
• Real estate agent and property manager, were able to get a claim admitted under the previous owner’s policy of insurance.
• Real Estate agent paid across the commission they earned from the sale to the new owner
• All of this could have been avoided in the agent had a policy of selling property where the meth history was known
Example 13 – Wairarapa
Meth test undertaken as part of due diligence. Meth test result indicated meth present at levels consistent with use.
The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 14 – Lower Hutt
Prospective purchaser undertook a Baseline test and identified low levels of meth consistent with use. Vendor acknowledged that a family member with a history of drug use had lived at the property. Meth-related activity had been denied and no disclosure was made.
Purchaser was still interested in the property as long as low levels of meth were confirmed. Insights test commissioned by the vendor confirmed this was the case and property sale followed.
Example 15 – Wellington
Pregnant lady with partner and young child were moved into a professionally managed property. Father of the lady spoke to neighbours to get a feel for the area his daughter was moving into. Meth-related history was reported to the new tenants. They contacted property manager and eventually, after becoming frustrated by the lack of response, commissioned their own meth test.
Property tested positive for meth at levels which indicated significant levels of meth-related behaviour. Repainting between tenancies increased the cost of remediation. The tenancy fell over due to unacceptably high levels of meth in the property.
Example 16 – Wellington
Managers of a property previously tenanted by what turned out to be high profile meth criminals, had property Baseline tested on a precautionary basis.
Tenants had lived in at least four other properties prior to this one.
Example 17 – Blenheim
Property for sale by overseas landlord was tested for meth by a prospective purchaser. Property tested positive for meth at levels which indicated significant levels of meth-related behaviour. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Owner undertook a commercial clean and had the property retested by a company using infield test kits. Property tested negative for meth. Not because there was no meth present, but because the amount that was present was insufficient to trigger the test kit used.
Example 18 – Nelson districts
Local rubbish collection company reported finding drug-related paraphernalia in the rubbish of a professionally managed property.
Property Manager initiated swift action to test the property between tenancies. Property tested positive for meth at levels which indicated meth use related behaviour. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 19 – Lyttleton
New owner noticed a change in paint colour on final inspection prior to going unconditional.
Property tested positive for meth at levels which indicated significant levels of manufacture related behaviour. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible!
Example 20 – Invercargill
Privately managed property finally had an inspection done. Inspection highlighted risk of contamination and a Baseline test occurred.
Property tested positive for meth at levels which indicated significant levels of use related behaviour. The absence of a previously established Baseline, means that the owner could not prove the tenant was responsible! The lack of inspection meant the owner’s insurance policy failed to respond.