Thursday, January 27, 2011

Letter from Director of Government Relations Housing New Zealand

I will comment in line on these matters as that way it will keep things to the point and clearly categorised.

27 January 2011
Dear Mr Hooper

Thank you for your email of31 December2010toDrLesleyMcTurk,Chief Executive of
Housing New Zealand Corporation, about issues relating to the termination of your
tenancy at 353 Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach. Dr McTurk has asked me to
reply to your email, and I have looked into the matters that you raise.

In your email you say that Corporation staff have lied under oath, and that your tenancy
was terminated on the basis of incorrect information. However, I have looked into your
allegations and have found no evidence to support them. The Corporation made the
decision to end your tenancy and commence criminal proceedings after an investigation
found that you had failed to declare the true extent of your income while claiming an
 
You claim to have investigated however you have not contacted our accountants to ascertain what the correct figures were, You have not contacted witnesses who will testify that the damage you claim was done to the house existed prior to us moving in and you have not contacted us to ascertain what parts of the court transcripts show that your staff lied. It seems to me that looking in to the matter was nothing more than asking your own staff internally so therefore it could hardly be seen as unbias and fair.
In New Zealand we follow the Napoleonic Code and more importantly the Code of Criminal Instruction to which a person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law however it appears that not just in our case but others Housing New Zealand feels they have the power to be Judge Jury and Executioner based on whatever information they feel like and without ensuring the correctness of that information.
In your email you also say that Corporation staff have breached the Privacy Act by
refusing to supply you with information that you requested about your tenancy. I
understand that you were provided with this information on 20 January 2011. It may be
helpful if I explain that your original request of 3 November 2010 was understood to be a
request for disclosure under the Criminal Disclosure Act, and was met on 9 November

This to me sounds more like an excuse than anything else, regardless of what we were asking for there is no reason HNZ had to withhold our tenancy information and even to this day they have failed to provide all of this information. Again this is not an isolated incident and we are well aware of others being refused their information.
You also say that the Corporation has charged you for the cost of repairing damage and removing rubbish that you are not responsible for. I can confirm, however, that the charges of $1,430.29 relate only to the cost of repairing damage and removing rubbish relating to the period of your tenancy. This work was required to bring the property to an acceptable standard for re-Ietting. Corporation records show that the property was tidy and in good condition before your tenancy commenced in November 2000.

If these records you claim show the property was tidy and in good condition when it was let are in existence then why have they not been supplied to us as per the request for information under the privacy act? further it is quite clear that the windows you have replaced were all broken when we moved in as I had to repair them myself and covered them over with lexan. This was brought up with our tenancy manager when we first moved in.

 
Finally, you say in your email that the Corporation has not resolved the problem with water ponding under the house, and has not repaired the remaining defects in the window frames. You may be interested to know that this work has been completed.

This may be the case now but given that while we were in the house the problems were not resolved and given that the photos we have are clearly dated as well as independent witnesses viewed the flooding after the work was completed brings in to question your organisations integrity.
I trust that this information is helpful to you. If you have any further concerns, I invite you to contact Peter Lauina, Housing Services Manager at the Otahuhu Neighbourhood Unit, on (09) 261 5502.

I think any contact would be a waste of time and given that HNZ have failed to communicate as per their customer promise as well as remedy the damage to my property caused by your contractors it is prety clear where your organisation sits.

26 comments:

  1. In my view you are doing yourself a disservice with the personal attacks. I appreciate this an emotional issue for you(and clearly not for HNZ) but you undermine your argument with the sarcasm.

    When people read the HNZ letter and your accompanying comments they just see you as a smart-alec, more interested in point scoring than reaching some sort of resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Claire how can you be non emotional when you have been put through the wringer by more than one employee of an over zealous government department who is trying to cover up it mess by making every tennat live in fear of a visit from their tennacy manager. If you say anything to Tenancy tribunal you are punished.. IS THAT FAIR....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having followed this saga for some months now I am amazed that Andrew has actually kept his cool and expressed his thoughts here as a forum where he can be seen to document the HNZ process (The Open and fair HNZ reminds me of a beer add). Obviously No one higher up in HNZ is prepared to reign in their Bully Boys because they dont want to be seen to be WRONGLY treating their tenants in front of the Housing minister(s). Wouldnt we rather andrew responded here than repeatedly try and get an honest resolution by HNZ instead he gets brushed off by the system because its before the courts and because of this the Hooper family is treated as guilty before their day and say in court by HNZ...Where is the resolution via mediation and discussion for the Hoopers here...

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is tragic that a person cannot appeal to a higher level bureacrat when being abused by the lower level bureacrat without being given a fair shake. It is obvious that this reply was based 100 percent on the lower level bureacrat input and not based on a fair investigation of facts. I know as a fact that the income issue is incorrect as it is based only on business revenue without proper consideration of business costs. Net income would of course be the net of that and I know the net has never been high enough afford a reasonable standard of living. They have not given Andrew sufficient grace to defend this outrageous accusation. The charge of $1430.59 is also outrageous as this property was derilect from the beginning of his tenancy and HNZ never would bring it up to decent living standards. I was there from the beginning and at several times paid out of my own pocket for desperately needed repairs. The statement that the property was "tidy and in good condition is incorrect based on my own observations from the beginning. The eventual degradation over the years was due to neglect by HNZ and not the tenant. The ground water accumulation under the house was stagnant, always present and helped to produce the mold condition that eventually led to the house being unlivable in my opinion. It was an insult and injury to Andrew and his family to find out that the water ponding has finally been fixed after he moved out and not for the ten years or so he lived there. Mr. Groufsky says he hopes this information is hepful. What a slap in the face. I see in other blogs that some say Andrew should have handled it differently, but you have no idea how mean spirited the HNZ people have been. The real shame of all this is that Andrew is a very hard working honest man who has endured great adversity while still managing to be an excellent father of three wonderful boys and perfect husband to a very nice lady. Never able to afford any luxuries, always putting food on the table somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is obvious that the three "Anonymous" comments above, have all been written by this blog's owner (Andrew).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian.. have you had an IQ test lately? Because it would surely amuse me to what you would score in it. The only person who would be enough of a loser to post anonymously about themselves on their own blog is you. So go ahead.. go make one. "Today I posted a dim-witted, idiotic comment on somebody else's blog. I feel so self-satisfied, maybe I'll go post more idiotic and pointless posts on some other blogs." I'm looking forward to reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Im afraid to point out that you are wrong on this one Mr Morrison.

    Regards
    Andrew Hooper

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now we have Andrew writing under the name "Shaun Taylor", and even under this name you still have the same errors of grammar that appear in your "Anonymous" postings.

    And of course, no matter what name you write under, you just can't help yourself from criticising anyone who disagrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr Morrison care to put your accusations to the test and your money where your mouth is?

    Or are you just another public servant/relative of who are full of incorrect accusations that carry little hard evidence.

    If you have evidence that I posted these myself then feel free to share it with everyone otherwise you are just reinforcing my view and what other posters have said.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just love playing with you Andrew, a.k.a Anonymous, a.k.a Shaun, and you take the bait every-time.

    I know you want to confess, HNZ knows you want to confess. It will go easier on you at sentencing when you confess to defrauding the taxpayer by under-declaring your income to get a cheaper rent than you were entitled to.

    Better that you confess now, before the Court finds you guilty, otherwise you will likely end up sharing a cell with former MP Phillip Field, where you both go on protesting your innocence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brian, your blatant ignorance and stubbornness amazes me. For one, please enlighten me by pointing out my apparent 'errors of grammar' in my previous post. If you had any kind of education, you would find that there is none.

    So is it your idiocy or your lack of reading skills that is leading to your moronic comments? Because you obviously haven't read the entire blog, if any of it, shown by your lack of knowledge for it. You're obviously not wanted here, so take your childish comments elsewhere.

    If you're going to make assumptions that Andrew is posting under multiple user names, most would expect some sort of evidence. But obviously you have none...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andrew, a.k.a Anonymous, a.k.a Shaun

    It's curious is it not that you bleat on about wanting evidence from me proving that you are all Andrew, when this is the exact same moan (wanting evidence) that Andrew under his real name makes of HNZ.

    Stranger still Andrew, you ask for evidence but then under your various identities make all sorts of accusations about me without any evidence !!

    So let me get this right. It's OK for you to make accusations and claims without any evidence, but it's NOT OK for HNZ to make accusations against you! Bit of a double standard Andrew!

    Nite-nite, see you tomorrow, I'm enjoying this, I won't be going away. Remember, you won't be able to blog from prison.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brian, You do realise that you are making yourself look like a complete plonker?

    You are welcome to see any of the evidence you want and some of it I have not posted here for obvious reason and I’m sure you can find my contact details in amongst the blog if you bother too look.

    It would be very interesting to see who you really are and if my suspicions are correct that you are in fact associated with HNZ and the fact that its likely you are the same person who suggested I go and top myself.

    The facts are simple...
    1. You came on this blog and proceeded to without any evidence at all claim I was the posted of various comments.

    2. you were given the opportunity to back up your claim and failed to do so.

    3. you make threats that you will continue your attack on me.

    As to what reason you have to do this one can only speculate but the fact you have not denied your association with HNZ seems to me to be the more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How bizar Mr Morrission should state he works for HNZ and be done with it. I commend him for responding and commenting. Pitty his HNZ process is not as open as this Blog. As you can see form earlier blogs re the Tennacy issues Andrew was only seeking remedy to the Shit bag HNZ property he lived in. HNZ has effectively tried to gag his requests by taking personnal attacks and Court action to push the point of making them the bad party rather than the obligation of HNZ to provide safe and livable housing for its tennants. I saw the shithole they lived in and how much they kept what they could livable. HNZ should be ashamed of ther attitudes and actions as PUBLIC servants. Hitler would be proud...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Mr. Morrison, I am personnally offended that you think my hearfelt post was from Andrew. My post was the one starting out as "It is tragic..." and ends with "on the table somehow." My name is Dr. James G. Crose and I live in the USA. You are a vindictive person who has no knowledge of the facts in this case. I have no idea what your motives are, but they cannot be honorable and constitute unwarranted harrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well after following this for a number of months, I am appalled at this situation.

    To my knowledge Andrew runs a business and may have under-estimated their family income. I think we would all know that using gross income from a business as true net income is certainly a foul practice. However instead of getting their facts and figures correct ... HNZ decide to prosecute and evict!

    Wouldnt it be simpler and more effective to get the facts and figures correct first?? Or is it that the tax payer will enjoy paying many thousands of dollars for the issue to be thrashed out in court?

    At this point HNZ can not even correctly prove how much "personal income" there is to be taken into account. So to evict and send a bill is somewhat pre-emptive!

    Lets also remember here that HNZ only started looking into this matter AFTER there were some issues with regards to them not bringing the property up to a fair and reasonable living standard. If this was not an attack on Andrew as some kind of "payback" then I am surprised.

    Going from the photos of the house I have seen, I would not even pay reduced rent to live in such an unfit house, and with the mould issues I would not have lived their with my children even if it was free! Perhaps HNZ should refund all money paid in rent that they did get for housing this family in such unfit squalor! And perhaps they are then fraudulent for renting out a property as ..... Housing New Zealand provides New Zealanders with access to good quality, affordable homes (from their own mission statement) ermmmm good quality? I think not!

    How is it fair that a hard working man who runs a business and works huge hours per day for very limited income is then evicted along with his family? Remembering here that this business was set up as a service to people not as a money making venture!

    The message that seems to be being sent here is that to secure a HNZ house you are safer to not work at all, you can get the same if not more money sitting on the unemployment line. At least this way you can be certain of having a roof over your head! Shame on you HNZ! Shame on you!

    ReplyDelete
  17. So I thought you weren't going away Brian? You just got yourself served. Maybe if you actually bothered to do ANY research, you might have realised how much of an idiot you are looking like. You also might have found out that I am in fact Andrew's son. Feel like a moron? You should, because you are.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Interesting reading from the Tenancy Tribunal.....

    "[10] The finding I now make is strongly critical of Mr Hooper but is necessarily so, in fairness to HNZ. Mr Hooper’s behaviour pattern is that, when HNZ offers or tries to implement a solution, he is ingenious at finding a new problem. HNZ is ready to remedy the water ponding under the house but Mr Hooper wants it done a different way. He also wants HNZ to pay for off-site storage of effects that he kept under the house, notwithstanding that the property has a 2-car garage and a shed.

    HNZ has replaced all the guttering and downpipes but Mr Hooper, while conceding reluctantly that it does not leak, says there should be more downpipes. HNZ has repaired the roof tiles. However, Mr Hooper is offended that he did not receive what he considers adequate notice of the contractor’s visit and complains of dust and debris on his vehicles and on the lawn. On that score he has made a complaint to the police, alleging wilful damage. He complains that one contractor ate some fruit off his tree and left the peel behind on the lawn."

    I never knew Dad was such a nut job until I read this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ummm the above post is hilarious considering that you spelled your own name wrong :)Oh thats right ... you are just pretending to be Shaun Taylor .... pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  20. More from the Tribunal....

    "[12] Another discernible pattern concerns Mr Hooper’s availability to provide access to
    contractors. Mr Hooper said in evidence, more than once, that he suffers from chronic
    depression and does not have much to do with his time. Notwithstanding this, he sometimes
    seemed to have more important things to do away from home, when HNZ’s contractors
    needed access to carry out work at his behest, for his benefit."

    ReplyDelete
  21. You think you know it all but you have no idea. Once again, you OBVIOUSLY haven't read much / any of the blog if you believe that rubbish. All the reasons for the crap told by HNZ is given in the blog, but you obviously haven't taken the time to look for it. Just give up, you're fighting a losing battle.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is worth noting that the person posting on January 29th 2011 at 5:28PM and again as kiddo on January 29th 2011 at 5:40 PM is neither of these people.

    This is clearly a case of identity fraud.

    In addition to this it appears that this person has clearly abused his internet service providers terms and conditions by using their internet service to commit a criminal act.

    It’s interesting to see that the only people to jump to the defence of Housing New Zealand and their staff are of this calibre and does not bode well for the organisation.

    This person should inform their associate member of HNZ "Karaka Tuhakaraina" that they have commited these acts in a public forum that implicate him.

    As for the posts it should also be noted that little regard was given to the additional information such as the evidence acquired from the contractors stating that we had never denied access and that HNZ's claims were in fact false. This is also why the case has now been handed up to the district court.

    If the people who's identity have been used by this poster request I will have no choice but to remove these posts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The only criminal offending taking place is your making false declarations to HNZ about your income so honest NZ taxpayer subsidised your rent.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So you knowingly post as another person and not yourself and have the ordasity to refer to yourself as honest...

    As for my supposed offending i guess time will tell but you have to wonder why HNZ are reluctant to release disclosure and what they are trying to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Do you have an email address? cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'll immediately grab your rss feed as I can not find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me recognize in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.

    my web page ... extension

    ReplyDelete