Responsible Reporting by stuff.co,.nz

So the question is does stuff check their facts and the validity of information? or more to the point do any of the larger media representatives. Earlier I took the opportunity to correct the reporter on a couple of things and after doing so rather than correct the information they continued on without alteration.

According to them they did not name us and therefore they can not be held liable for slander.

One would have thought that if you were aware that the information you posted was not correct your would have an obligation to correct that information regardless of if you named the person or not. Well not according to Danya Levy as she stated that if i have an issue with what was posted I needed to take this up with Housing New Zealand.

Now the error was not just incorrect based on my view but was also incorrect based on what was submitted to court. Is it the case that once you have been convicted of something you have no rights and the media can say whatever they like without checking its validity.

stuff.co.nz article.

Apparently according to Stuff the minister "Phil Heatly" announced that..

"More than 300 state housing tenants were evicted in the past year for lying about their circumstances, including one couple that ran an internet business from their property which turned over almost $400,000."

I can only assume the $400K he is referring to is actually $400K total turnover over about 8 Years and this also included loans and assistance from family. Now take in to account that the raw network operating expenses for that same period were $336K you are left with $64K and divide that by the 8 years.

Its not as clear cut as the minister would lead you to believe is it. But the fact that our defense team had a budget of around $1700.00 and the crown had an unlimited budget shows just how fair the system is.

I would love to be able to say more but due to new evidence that has just come up we are in the process of lodging an appeal.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7524975/More-state-house-cheats-being-caught?comment_msg=posted#post_comment

According to the stuff reporter who i spoke to today this information was provided to the media in a press conference today.

Appropriate Behavior by Corrections

Now do not get me wrong on this We have been found guilty and I have at present accepted that and we are serving our sentence. This is not an admition of guilt by us but acceptance of our situation.

The big however here is that the case has several large issues in the way it was presented and conducted and afterwards the processes that we had to go through resulting in a huge degree of undeserved stress and anxiety for not only myself but our whole family.

 Some of these matters were documented and handed up to the various relevant authorities and in one case we have received an apology for the huge mistake made. One of the complaints were toward the department of corrections who seem to have passed the complaint over to the person who the complaint was targeted at and yesterday I received a call demanding a meeting with her and she stated she wanted to write down exactly what I said.

She arrived where I was doing my community services then proceeded to grill me, several requests to for her to curb her attitude were ignored and she wrote on the paperwork what she wanted not what I was saying and refused to correct it.

I also was left with the feeling from comments that as I had chosen to exercise my right to lay the complaint I was going to be targeted and things were going to be made difficult for me. It sounded in all honesty like the person I was dealing with has some form of revenge planned.

SO in a nut shell, I complained to the minister, they handed the complaint to the department of corrections who then asked the person who the complaint was made about to investigate and clarify. A bit of a conflict of interests if you ask me and now i have to look forward to what for of revenge will be extracted.

The who saga left me is a real state yesterday resulting in the rest of the day having to deal with uncontrollable shaking and making an emergency doctors visit as I really did think something was going to pop.

Now to compact the issues there was another guy who had been waiting where I do my community service for the same person to meet him on site so he could begin with his sentence however much like when we had a meeting there she had forgotten that the meting was taking place and did not have the paperwork handy. Surely is people like this are not able to conduct their job in a professional manner they should not be working in such a position.

Mind you we are criminal's now so I am guessing we do not deserve any civilities.

More Drama

I have been trying to get a copy of the judges ruling and sentencing since the case ended however to no avail. From memory I received 200hrs community service and have to pay reparation to HNZ based on the total rent we would have paid as if we were not eligible for the rental assistance. In my case this is $20'000.00 and this had to be be paid at $50.00 per week. My wife received 150hrs of community service and has to pay 10'000.00 in reparation. We both went the same day and organised out community service then contacted the courts about how we pay the reparation, they stated that I have to pay $50.00 per charge per week making it a total of $400.00 per week and my wife has to pay $25.00 per charge being $100.00 per week. I informed them that was not what was stated in court however they said that the only way to remedy that was to go back to court and that those are the figures that were entered in to the system. At present my wife is working and I have lost the work coming in as I can no longer pass the security checks so paying that amount of money for us is not possible as well as the fact we have to feed and bring up 3 kids. After my conversation I sent a letter to the minister of the courts as in my view they had it wrong, I had requested the courts send us a copy of the judges decision but they have not done so. I received a nice letter stating that the minister would look in to it and last week we were contacted by the courts saying they had made an error. I requested written confirmation of this and both an apology as well as a copy of the judges decision. they have to date failed to supply this. So its OK for the courts to make these mistakes but when we the public make them we end up being crucified.

DO NOT GIVE INTERVIEWS!

This is great advice. Anyone who is asked to do an interview with Housing New Zealand should heed this warning. In our case we watched more than one instance of our statement being used out of context and false statements being made by HNZ staff. Yep we have evidence of the false statements made while under oath and how the courts were mislead but unless our lawyer at the time brought this to the attention of the courts apparently there is little that can be done. http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

Its prety much over

Well its finally over. No idea yet how things went as the judge will announce his decision on the 29th however we are not feeling good about it. maybe I have just lost all faith after being grilled so heavily by the crown.

Anyway a word of warning....
If you are HNZ tenant and operate a business even its its a limited liability company you have to declare the total income of that business as your income. that is ALL deposits. This is according to the crown and the HNZ investigators.

More evidence

Well there we go. The crown prosecutor was away sick yesterday and the case was put off until Wednesday however today we get more information and some changes in their witness list.

in court today

The case has been adjourned as firstly the crown only supplied their analysis of the records on Friday. these were prepared by HNZ and it appears they are not correct. given that we have had out heads on the chopping block for 14months and HNZ started their investigation well before then you would think this information would have already been done and would be correct.

Today we are in court

We are in court today. the hearing is supposed to take 4 days.

Both Debbie and I are not doing too well as the pressure of this case is really taking its toll both psychically and emotionally.

Although I am thankful that the combination of medication and some form of inner strength showed through the other day things came to such a head that I came close to doing something extremely stupid.

Presented with the unpalatable decision

Last week our lawyer's had a conference with the judge and the crown prosecution. We have now been provided with what the crown has interpreted as all of the evidence however due to the format and the nature of this information it is not a quick and easy process sorting it. The judge at this stage has refused our request to postpone the hearing so we can have time to look at it.

We have also received an indication from the crown that if I plead guilty to all charges from 2007 onward they will drop all charges against my wife.

Doing so will result in me loosing my job as well as accepting a conviction for something I strongly believe we did not do. on the other side of the coin if my wife and I are found guilty we will both loose our jobs.

given that we really don't have the resources and have not been afforded the same time as the crown to prepare and challenge the information with expert advice this puts us on the back foot.

This decision seems to be also causing some family issues and a rift is forming between my wife and I not for the fact that either one of us have done wrong but the fact that this would release us from a burden that has been hanging over our heads for well over a year now.

I guess we have to be thankful we are not in the shoes of Mr dotcom.

We were in court a couple of weeks ago and finally it seemed that the Judge realized just how much of a crock this case is. The summary of accounts still had not been done and the index of evidence had not been received. In addition he asked the question as to How HNZ had laid the charges without having first done the summary of accounts and if they just laid the charges in the hope that we were going to plead guilty.

He made an order for the documents to be produced and stated that if these were not provided he would be open to a request from us to have the charges dismissed.

Today we had the a hearing to see if this had happened and, 2 days ago we received the summary of accounts however I have not yet seen them so have no idea what they/it is. In addition we have been informed that they can not provide the index of evidence as there is none. Now we have the summary of accounts we can move forward and have a forensic accountant look at the figures.

We asked for time to do this however the Judge stated that a fixture of 4 days has all ready been set and that this was not going to be changed. We have 2 months to deal with this and I am quite concerned that this will not be enough time. However from their summation in court the figures are pretty dismal.. Given that we know HNZ are trying to get a conviction their figures are going to be based in favor of a conviction. The prosecutor in summary told the judge that the income derived over this time was $43K. that's a combined income.... 3 kids, 2 adults. the figures my accountant has come up with differ from this greatly however even working on these figures and recalculating the income based on their figures their total claim is not correct.

We have also received a claim against us from Baycorp for 81K as HNZ have now lodged the debit regardless of the fact this has not been to court. Oh and yes the person who lodged the claim with baycorp was our wonderful ex tenancy manager who kicked this whole vexatious thing off Katrina O'Conner.

Drunk on power

It just goes to show that all though we are comparing apples with houses the fact remains that when you give someone the power there is the chance they will abuse it as is our opinion that our old tenancy manager Katrina O'Conner has adopted a similar view and has not qualms about abusing the powers she has been entrusted with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VFygR_-wBsc

Baycorp

Well we just received a call from Baycorp today. It appears that HNZ have lodged what they are claiming the income related debit is. and yes this was lodged by our then tenancy manager Katrina O'conner.

The matter has still not been to court.

I'm pretty sure this election year neither of the larger parties are getting my vote as both have made promises to look at this matter and neither have done anything about it.

So its now a Political Issue?

You really have to wonder what politicians do to actually earn their money. Stating the obvious and making generalized statements seems to be the norm these days.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10742704

So OK, HNZ have busted some people but there are also a pile of people in those figures that are being victimized by the powers these guys are wielding. So when Phil and his cronies make erroneous accusations they should be open to prosecution.

But sadly this is not the case, they can make whatever claims they like and if they get it wrong they don't seem to even have to supply an apology or make amends.

I was shocked to see this.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/25753816/

It seems to me that these guys just dont get it, It is all well and good for the haves to pass judgement on the havenot's and to try and shove people in to their own little category but that is not the way the real world works.

I do not deny there are some instances where people are abusing the system but from what we have seen and experanced there are more HNZ and SOE workers who are milking the government not to mention contractors who seem to be charging and putting in claims for work that either has not been done correctly or charges that have been balooned and are unreasonably excessive.

How about HNZ fix its internal strcuture first and make sure your staff adhere to the correct process and proceedure then look at your tennants. A problem exists and unless you deal with that problem at the core you are wasting time and valued resources not to mention putting the New Zealand people who you are supposed to be serving under undue stress.

And before any HNZ Associate or employee tries to take a swipe about unfounded allegations as I have previously stated I have evidence that shows your processes have not been followed on more than one account not to mention the other evidence where your staff have breached their duties and made false claim (including in court and while under oath).

Draging the chain

On the 8th my wife and I appeared in court on the charges laid by HNZ however we were unable to proceed again as HNZ had again failed to supply full disclosure as well as a statement of claim, witness list and other relevant information pertaining to the case.

I am no lawyer but one would think that a statement of claim would have been prepared well before any charges were laid as is the case with any other court matter. and that all of the evidence would have been provided to the defence.

After speaking with our lawyers it appears they were pretty shocked as to the delays and reluctance to provide the required information. In the meantime we are struggling to bet by and are in essence being held ransom by the actions of this government agency and its staff.

HNZ and the Ministers Mandate

So maybe someone can explain to me why an organisation has had a mandate set down by the crown but they can modify this mandate and create their own meaning, even worse the minister who is supposed to keep an eye on things can ignore the blatant disregard for what the crown has set down.


The crown formed HNZ and gave it the following functions.

 Functions of Corporation

• (1) The Corporation's principal function is to achieve its objectives.
  (2) The Corporation's functions include—

  • (a) providing rental housing, principally for those who need it most:

  • (b) providing appropriate accommodation, including housing, for community organisations (in particular for community organisations that provide residential support services for people with special needs):

  • (c) lending for housing purposes, and providing other help relating to housing:

  • (d) giving people (in particular people on low or modest incomes who wish to own their own homes) help and advice on matters relating to housing or services related to housing:

  • (e) undertaking housing and other development and renewal, whether on its own account or on behalf of other persons:

  • (f) acquiring and developing land for housing or other development and renewal, whether by—
    • (i) providing housing amenities, facilities, services, or works; or
    • (ii) providing commercial or industrial amenities, facilities, services, or works; or
    • (iii) providing related amenities, facilities, services, or works; or
    • (iv) doing any other thing:

  • (g) selling, leasing, disposing of, managing, or otherwise dealing with land, whether in the course of housing or other development and renewal or otherwise:

  • (h) providing housing or services related to housing as agent for departments of State or Crown entities:

  • (i) taking action, in relation to or in connection with the provision of housing or services related to housing, provided for in—
    • (i) the Corporation's current statement of intent; or
    • (ii) a notice or agreement under section 20; or
    • (iii) a plan under section 20A:

  • (j) conducting research into, and monitoring trends in, housing and services related to housing:

  • (k) advising the Minister of Housing on housing and services related to housing:

  • (l) any other functions conferred on it by this Act or any other enactment.
  (3) In performing any of its functions, the Corporation may consult any person or organisation whose views or knowledge it believes will enhance its performance of the function.
  (4) Subsection (2) does not limit subsection (1).
  Section 18 was substituted, as from 1 July 2001, by section 7 Housing Corporation Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 37).

And on the HNZ website we find this:

The Corporation's formal mandate The Corporation is a Crown entity. The Housing Corporation Act 1974 sets out the Corporation's objectives and functions as follows⁸:

1. to give effect to the Crown's social objectives by providing housing, and services related to housing, in a businesslike manner, and to that end to be an organisation that:
   1. exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates; and
   2. exhibits a sense of environmental responsibility by having regard to the environmental implications of its operations; and
   3. operates with good financial oversight and stewardship, and efficiently and effectively manages its assets and liabilities and the Crown's investment; and
2. to ensure that the Minister of Housing receives appropriate policy advice, other advice, and information, on housing and services related to housing

 I can see how some of this can be interpreted and the act could be elaborated on, but then we see statements from both the Minister and HNZ claiming they are just acting as a landlord.
A clear case of this is the statement in the following article.
http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10719873&ref=rss

The case has been described as illustrating Housing New Zealand's new direction - a focus on managing houses rather than housing people.
But Minister Phil Heatley has demanded it is to"get back to core business which is tenancy management".

Is Mr Heatly really that far out of touch or has he just not read the act? Or is my interpretation flawed.
And now we also see that Government is also trying to sneak in an amendment to the legislation and, although it is online, I have not seen any other publicity about it and it is going to affect a lot of people.

In the case the herald has reported on it appears their reason for evicting the tenant was that he supposedly assaulted a neighbour. The question I have to ask is were criminal charges laid and pursued, and if not their actions are unreasonable. We have had something similar in our case where we have been evicted before prosecuted and given that HNZ were the ones who laid the charges in the first place and only follow a complaint we made to the tenancy tribunal and minister are really nothing more that an attempt to cause our family more stress.

The crown really needs to look in to how this organisation is conducting itself as it is causing more problems than it is fixing. It seems to be a haven for the power hungry who enjoy abusing their position and pushing people about.

Court Proceedings

Yesterday my wife and I were in court regarding our appeal on the Adjudicators ruling that resulted in HNZ not having to pay for repairs we had done to the house, causing damage to our property and in our view misleading the adjudicator.

Given that HNZ have laid criminal charges against us we felt that as there is evidence that would be beneficial to us in the criminal matter rather than bringing this information to light in the civil matter we would vacate these proceedings and deal with it at a later date once the criminal matters are resolved.

The Judged hit us for $300.00 costs and had we known that we would be liable for costs we would not have done this however as we have tried to get legal assistance and to date not been able to we were none the wiser.

However while waiting out side the court rooms our ex tenancy manager meet with another person who I believe to be a tenancy manager from another region. They proceeded to discuss the cases they were working on including various matters that were completely unrelated to this appearance such as what my wife and I believe was information about our criminal case. Keep in mind that this discussion is going on within a public area and at one stage was taken out side in the courtyard.

From their conversation I was able to ascertain that the other tenancy manager was there for one of her tenants. I later managed to catch up with this tenant and had a discussion with them about their case. I found there to be quite a number of similarities in the way our cases had been handled and the attitude of HNZ to run in guns blazing as I feel they have done in our case with little regard for the facts or the procedure that has been set down for them to follow.

Unfortunately the lady we meet with has not been able to get legal representation to assist her and has also been evicted from her house. I do not know the full story behind her case and have my own problems to deal with but there was enough there to reinforce the view I currently hold of HNZ and their so called procedure.

I have spoken to the office of the Privacy Commissioner and have confirmed with them that the conversation that took place outside of the court rooms may be another breach in the privacy act but given that HNZ has not been held accountable for their previous breach I wonder if its even worth wasting my time and making another complaint.

Victimised

Late last week we received a letter from HNZ claiming an income related rent debit of around $81k, it is quite clear that this is contestable and is directly related to the criminal matter before the courts at the moment however HNZ have made a demand for this money and haev further thretend legal action and state that this will impact on our credit rating.

The letter was sent to our new address after being forced in to having to release thiese details to HNZ by the tennancey tribunal when a previous adjudicator had supressed these details due to our concern for reprisal.

This weeken and allmost imediatly after receiving the letter some thugs smashed up our mail box in the middle of the night, I chased them up the road but it appears they had a car waiting for them. I should not be surprised by this as it is prety clear that our old tennancey manager has it in for us given the statements that we have read in the HNZ documentation and the lies that have been told by her in court.

Some may say that Im just being paraniod and this could be the case but on the entire street our letter box was the only one smashed and the fact a car seemed to be waiting up the road seems to me to be very strange.

It also was not an attack on the previous residence of this place as they were hear for quite a number of years and as luck would have it after moving in we found out we found out that I knew them for years before the move via another associate.

Who not to vote for

Well after our dealings with government its pretty easy to make this decision, our local candidate is Jame-Lee Ross and last week my wife and I had the opportunity to have a brief encounter with him. He was on the street campaigning with Hon Maurice Williamson who we have also had discussions with about our HNZ issues and who undertook to assist us giving me his guarantees however shortly after his involvement we were hit with the investigation and eviction.

We put several questions to Mr Ross and to be honest he was pretty shifty then stated we could speak to him later when he was elected and had the power to do something.

Now I have lived in this area for most of my life and have never really followed the local politics other than had a few aquantances who have been involved over the years but all i can say is Why on Earth would we elect people who have no idea as to what it is like to be an average Kiwi?

My wifes first comment when we meet Mr Lee was that he came across as a silver spoon boy and a quick review of his acheivments as well as schooling seems to confirm these views. Holds a Pilots Licence, Went to Dilworth School...

Someone needs to make a rule that before you are allowed to represent New Zealand and its people you need to have at the very least rubbed shoulders with us and know what its like to be an average joe.

Who will we vote for? as yet I have not seen anyone who in our view would be suitable however so far the only people who have actually taken the time to review our situation and to even visit and make comment on the substandard house we were being forced to live in were Labour candidates.
In addition the only peope who seem to be asking and answering some of the hard questions again are Labour Candidiates.

An email that was sent to several National MP's seems to have just been ignored and a previous query to nationals minister of housing came back pretty much stating that he had spoken to HNZ and was happy with their response to questions regardless of us having provided evidence showing that their response was full of lies.

NOTE: I stand corrected. Dilworth is apparently not a silverspoon school and from what has been pointed out things have changed a lot over the years. Now apparently you have to come from a broken family or come from "struggle street" to attend.