Editorial: Clarity needed on meth-contaminated homes

According to one estimate, contamination, even if remediated, can drop a sale price up to 5 per cent. Photo/File

It's emerged some landlords with meth-contaminated houses are avoiding telling local authorities to ensure that their homes don't lose value.

Investors say having the information on their property's council file - even if the chemical residue is removed - carries a stigma, and will put buyers off.

The behaviour is not illegal, but one homeowner's association says it is "unscrupulous to say the least".

The Auckland Council's regional environmental control manager, Marcus Herrmann, has confirmed people are avoiding reporting contamination for a variety of reasons, including uncertainty about remediation requirements, and the effect on their profits.

It does appear landlords who carry out clean-up work on their properties are often in a no-win situation. According to one estimate, contamination, even if remediated, can drop a sale price up to 5 per cent.

Property Investors Federation executive officer Andrew King says there's a "hysteria around it. If you do a test and it's over the limit, and then clean it, there's no way it's going to have an effect on anyone living there."

I can understand that landlords don't want to lose money on their investments.

However, future owners or tenants deserve to know the history of a property so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to live in the home.

I know that, personally, I would like such information to be disclosed if I was looking to move into a property.

Hopefully, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill before Parliament will provide some clarity for both landlords and tenants. The rules on contamination are simply guidelines, but the bill will make these "standards" enforceable later this month.