Dear Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities,
I had previously requested all information in any format be provided to me in regard to my sabotaged BIT process.The first OIA release was heavily redacted with incomplete & missing information.
My second OIA request for unredacted information was then provided, with previously excluded information, included.
2 records were excluded from that second request.
I am now requesting further information relating to my BIT process be handed over.
OIA request:
1) All records of a initial visit to me by Jonathan Hualngo (TCYLIAISON) on 23-05-2022
recorded as a Business Action. What did that home visit set out to achieve,i.e its
purpose?
Which K/O customer forms were signed and dated by me?
Please provide a true & correct copies.

2) 5 days prior,it is recorded a '1st home visit letter to discuss Potential Redev' was
delivered by ACL Jonathan'.
I have no record of that letter,please provide a true & correct copy of that letter.

The HDS Team - Auckland
3) I had requested all information relating to my BIT, which involved the HDS Team from
Auckland, be handed over.They began my BIT on 08-May-2023 with an initial
home visit.Please provide records of their involvement to progress my BIT up to May
2024. It was their responsibility to move my BIT forward to completion.

4) HDS then went on to commandeer a vacant property I had been allocated by the
Housing Placement Team.
K/O avoided responding to that particular request,claiming it impinged on the (HDS)
tenant's privacy.
The internal Tenancy Transfer & Placement process is held within K/O & is public
information.
My Placement process had little to do with an individual's right to privacy.
The OIA request is solely to determine whether HDS,Vlietstra & Time followed K/O
K/O Guidelines for Placement (mine only).

5) The Housing Placement team had allocated me 6 Aurora St.
Carley Vlietstra made an appt. to see me at home.She then cancelled in favour of
Alexis Time (ACL).
20-Sept-2023 at home meeting
His role was to discuss the property I was to transfer to and assess property for
transport.
He confirmed I had Aurora St.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, he was required to give me a 90 day notice.
He did not.
He was not there to complete my BIT.
My BIT had been approved by MSD and was registered to ease going LIVE.
That was on the 8th August.
Redevelopment was confirmed on 13th Sept. Vlietstra & Time were notified.
Please present to me, the original documents Alexis Time had completed on that
day, the 20th Sept. which I had actually signed.
NB The Customer Information form presented under the OIA by the K/O responder,was
inaccurate and my signature was copied from another source.
That form had been manipulated and presented as authentic.
Please do not present it again.

6) The OIA responder, claimed the only evidence of my 7 month long BIT process, was
the aforementioned form and a letter dated the 01-March (no year given) which was
actually a letter from the Govt.Services answering an OIA request on the 01-March-
2024.
So it is not unreasonable to expect a full accounting of my BIT process.That is, a
truthful account of how the Placements Team and Alexis Time BYPASSED my BIT.

7) What was the date of Carley Vlietstra (TLHS) first appointment with me?
If that appt. date is not recorded (early Sept) then the date of her first phone call to
me will suffice.
Leading up to that appt.,what records are held from that team's assessment of my BIT
for u/utilising and then redevelopment?

8) All records between the HDS Team and the Placements Team,which enabled those
teams to 'Bypass' my allocation to Aurora St.
It is recorded that the HDS tenant had a 'start date' for their redevelopment.
A 'start date' is not a prerequisite for a redevelopment BIT.In fact,the process is tenant
re-housed before a redevelopment can start.

For every legitimate action by staff, there is a record and if not; ethics have been compromised.

Customer Ref:192049

Yours faithfully,

k humphreys