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.

Damage to your home - paying for repairs

On the 20^th December 2010 we received a letter from Housing New Zealand claiming we had damaged the property and informing us that we had to pay $1430.29 by the 24^th December. Clearly this is an early Christmas present from the government department to cap off the other vexatious actions they are taking.

When we moved in to the house some 10 years ago the house was not exactly in tiptop condition and, given our circumstances, was our only option so we accepted it. We had a reasonable relationship with our tenancy manager and over time some problems were resolved. As would be the case with any tenancy or landlord we liaised with him and sought his permission before doing anything to or in the house.

Housing New Zealand however has continued with their relentless persecution of our family in what appears to be a common practice to extort money from those in need. There seems to be a great lack of checks and balances to ensure fairness and equality and little interest in sticking to their charter and customer promise let alone the enactments of government put in place to protect tenants.

At this stage I am hesitant to comment on a completely itemised list of what they are claiming and as to the evidence we have that rebuts their claim due to the fact we have not decided as to what action we need to take to deal with this albeit via the tenancy tribunal, district court or government ombudsman and if criminal charges will be laid against them.

I am also mindful that Housing New Zealand as we have seen are a large government sanctioned organisation and that they have an endless budget and resources to throw at people as they have been doing to us to make people’s lives a living hell.

To give you an idea as to the pettiness of the matter in, Bucklands Beach we use recycle bins and these are collected every 2^nd Thursday. We moved out a week prior to the collection, and all that was required was on the Thursday after the next, the bin needed to be put on the side of the road for collection.  HNZ charged us for the removal of this as well as the removal of bricks and other things that were at the property when we moved in.

These actions pretty clearly support my claims that Housing New Zealand have been using their position to victimise our family and relentlessly cause us as much grief as they can and regardless of the fact that we were forced to move out due to Housing New Zealand not adhering to the work order set by the tenancy tribunal and purposely misleading the courts and the tribunal.

And what does the government have to say about this? Well at present the only thing we have been told is that this is an operational matter with Housing New Zealand.

Due Process

Over the weekend we were going over some of the information HNZ have provided and the information provided is definitely not full disclosure, but then this really comes as no surprise.

But while going over these details I re-read our legal aid application and it struck me that the system is clearly broken.

HNZ have a full time investigations team working to rake up any and all information and prepare a case that is then handed over to the crown. This investigative process, as we have been told, is extremely thorough and leaves no stone unturned, and has the backing of legislation so as to ensure all information is available to it.
The costs involved in running such a team must be huge and having a dedicated investigator work on a specific case for several months would not be cheap.

Then the report is prepared and HNZ have a meeting with the crown prosecutors office who seem to have an unlimited budget and can afford to call whatever experts they choose in to give opinion as well as continue the investigative process to prove your guilt.

Now someone who is on a low income such as us really only have Legal Aid to assist us and unlike the crown these guys draw a line in the sand only allocating a specific amount of hours to the lawyer to work on the case and only providing a certain amount of money to lodge a defense.

So you have a machine with an endless budget and unlimited funds going up against someone who has very limited resources, and people expect that person to be able to prove their innocence as this definitely seems to be the case these days because, without proving their case, HNZ have invoiced us for what they believe is the shortfall in rent, revoked our rental assessment and evicted us.

In addition to this the Prosecution seems to be able to pick and choose what it supplies as evidence and not have to hand up the details, warts and all. In a way I would say this is customizing the evidence to meet the allegation's.

Hollow Aplogies

Today we received a letter from our Tenancy Manger apologising for the confusion regarding the inspection but then later claiming or rather making an excuse that we had in fact arranged a meeting with he colleagues for the 6th. Apparently here colleagues arrived on the 6th and we were not home and this is why the letter was sent claiming we had not allowed access.

There are a few inconsistencies with this as,
Firstly neither my wife nor myself recall making any arrangements for the 6th and if this was requested given the history we would have requested the appointment in writing so as to have a paper trail.
Secondly I reviewed my phone records and email records and can state categorical I was here all day on the 6th with calls being made and received as early as 9:47 up to 14:56 and emails being replied to and sent from 8:21am to 7:50pm. and I'm pretty sure I did not leave home all day.

I would happily accept a genuine apology for a genuine error but given the circumstances and the continued attempts to cover up the facts I find such an apology to be conditional on us having to believe the untruths being told.

In the email Katrina does state that this recent inspection will be our last until just before we vacate the property in December so I can assume from that we will not see any further work being done to fix the issues with the house. This pretty much confirms to us that HNZ and more so Katrina has been angling for our eviction for some time.

We still have no idea how we are going to afford a new place as the rental prices are well above our combined income.

Creative History

It seems from where we are standing Housing New New Zealand's staff practice the rewriting of history to suite their needs and in all honesty from what we have seen make false claims as to the count of events as well as create documents and backdate them so as to create their own paper trail.

On the 17th of August 2010 we received a letter from our tenancy manager Kartina O'Conner for access to the house for an inspection to take place Monday 30th August between 9AM and 12PM stating she would need to check all the rooms in the home. My wife and I arranged our schedule so as to be here however after waiting all day Kartina did not turn up.

Monday the 13th September 2010 a message was left on our phone from Katrina O'Conner and although I did not pick this up my wife said that Katrina wanted to arrange access for an inspection. That morning I sent an email to katrina.oconner@hnzc.co.nz asking her to clarify in writing when she would like this meeting.

Katrina then sent me a response and in noted under our name in bold the following statement
AS previously discussed It is necessary to complete an inspection of your home
I took this to mean as per the previous letter and the phone call.
This email was dated 13th September 2010 11:23am and the request was to visit Monday 20th September 2010 between 10am and 11am.

On the 14th we received two letters from Housing New Zealand both written by Katrina, Postmarks on the envelope were for the 13th of September however on the letterhead one was dated 9th September and the other dated 13th September

The letter dated the 9th September implies that we have denied access or at the least made it difficult for Katrina to conduct her inspection and makes threats as to the tenancy tribunal and exemplary damages. As stated above the reason the previous inspection did not take place was nothing to do with us as we waited here all day on the 30th and Katrina did not turn up nor did she phone us to arrange an alternative time.

The other letter received was dated the 13th September and was in essence the same as the email received requesting access for Monday 20th September 2010.

This is not an isolated incident as We have previously received notices claiming we had denied access to contractors and despite being provided with information to the contrary these complaints have never been retracted. Even in court both Katrina O'Conner and her boss Robert Redford made these claims. We have a transcript that has been attached to one of the previous posts between myself and the contractor who states we had not denied access.

Another instance was when the window frame fell apart after having been repaired and the glass broke almost decapitating my youngest son, HNZ claimed we denied access to the contractor however the contractor refused to conduct the repair as requested by HNZ due to safety concerns. HNZ wanted only the glass replaced in the faulty frame.

I am sure that if this was a member of public and not a government employee questions would be asked as to what was going on and why this false information was being created and recorded in what can only bee deemed as an an official government document.

I have sent an email to katrina.o'conner@hnzc.co.nz he boss robert.redford@hnzc.co.nz and who I believe is the Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand Lesley.McTurk@hnzc.co.nz however as we have been evicted from the house in what we believe to be a retaliatory manner I do not hold out much hope of anything being done.

Here are copies of the original documents in order. Click on the image for a larger view

The original inpection date that Katrina failed to attend

Complaint implying we denied access

The recent inspection request

Envelopes that both the Complaint and Recent inspection request were received in

Housing New Zealand claimed we denied access

Following a the formal notification from Tenancy Tribunal in their order and a letter that forwarded to me from Housing New Zealand claiming we had denied access to the property for contractors to undertake repairs I thought it prudent to publish the transcript between myself and the Housing New Zealand contractor.

This information was provided to the Adjudicator and both the Tenancy Manager Katrina O'Connor and the Manager of the Panmure Branch Robert Redford were informed that we had not denied access and given the opportunity to rectify their statement but seem to have ignored this.

Whilst in court and under oath Katrina O'Connor whilst representing Housing New Zealand on at least two occasions claimed that we had denied access to contractors.

Here is an extract from a transcript of a recording between myself and Housing New Zealands Contractor.

Andrew:
That’s good. That’s good. Hey just had some issues come up, we’ve been going through some of the bits and pieces and doing some preparation, we’ve been told by Housing that they have cancelled the work order because we denied access.
Contractor:
No, what I said was I emailed them and told them that you weren’t happy with the way that it was going to be to just have the hole filled up so that’s why as far as I know they’ve cancelled it. I’m not too sure. That’s as far as I’ve gone with it so …
Andrew:
Right, OK. No, they’re claiming and stating and certainly got written in their notes on the system that we denied access to the builders to be able to fill it up.
Contractor:
No, I just said to them that you weren’t going to be happy with what was done so there wasn’t much point in us doing the job so … they’ve got the notes for that so …