Dear Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities,

Introduction/Background:

I started drafting this information request 6 months ago and it centers around;

i, the disingenuous, dishonest, and unethical approach a particular Kainga Ora Tenancy Manager has taken towards my mother’s KO Porirua tenancy of 50+years which involved targeted, harassing, & dismissive responses who was more interested in addressing the needs or her own people ie Maori/Pacific Island tenants than that of the ethnic minorities. I am referring to Sene Reese Temara (Senior Housing Services Manager/SHSM), or our former ‘Tenancy Manager’(or TM).

ii, The TM’s blatant lack of response to 3 serious potentially life threatening incidences originating from an unruly tenant’s property(of Maori descent).

iii, An irresponsible neighbouring tenant(since relocated), who refused to control unruly visitor behaviour directed at us(encouraged by TM’s inaction). This tenancy, belonging to the occupant- a dope smoker and gang associated- was where the life threatening incidences originated from.

Even though the unruly TM is no longer assigned to my mother’s tenancy this request describes what can and does happen within KO.

The issue is more about an unaddressed irresponsible tenant behaviour than gang relatedness although the 2 are related in this case - where the TM failed to act on unruly tenant behaviour.

The information request seeks(and raises);

a, Information on why certain actions were (or were not) taken by KO ie the TM in ensuring the safety of its tenants especially, longstanding tenants of ethnic minority.

b, Information recorded in the tenancy logs(or call centre logs) - a record of all communication relating to the tenancy between Kainga Ora and tenant), specifically, the redacted entries in the logs. Refer ‘2. Redacted Logs’.

c, Issues relating to the wider community both tenant and ethnic minorities based on my own personal experiences.

Generally, there is a reason for the redacted information being concealed from the tenant
but, considering all the serious incidences we have been involved in where we were the victims, ie the false information on KO records ie the fabricated complaint and the misleading risk rating both issued by the TM, is enough justification to access this redacted information, if, for no other reason, than to assess its validity as well as exercise our right to defend against any potentially false claims made by an employee of a government agency - in light of the fact that we were never the threatening element in the area – other parties were.

My mother has been a longstanding tenant for over 50+years, we are of Indian descent- an ethnic minority- and the irresponsible neighbouring tenant in question, has been there for about 10+ years who has since relocated but only after a series of serious potentially life threatening incidences had already occurred which placed my mother, an elderly indian woman, at ongoing significant risk. KO were slow to act on incidences where we were the victims. Refer ‘26. Ethnic minorities’ & ‘23. Stigma of Kainga Ora tenancies-KO slow to act’.

I have to ask but why would KO repeatedly place a gang associated dope smoking tenants next door to a family of ethnic minority, a dwelling of 2 people, one of whom, an elderly indian woman? KO must realise that they would be placing an elderly tenant in a vulnerable position. The outcome is always the same ie racial slurs, threats, intimidation, loud music and dope smoking.

KO pride themselves for creating strong communities and value cultural diversity but that should apply to all ethnicities within KO tenancies and just not a select few?
Refer 25. Strengthening communities but not all’ & ’26. Ethnic minorities’.

The TM’s targeted ‘mission’ happened around the time when there was an impending sweep of job cuts within KO and, so, we found it just as stressful when the TM placed my mother’s 50+ year tenancy at risk.

The problem is that this TM has tried to orchestrate a scenario where we appear to be the unruly threatening tenant by way of antagonism, dismissing our complaints of being the victims, targeting ‘clutter’ in the home to form the basis of breach notices, altering official KO records in a misleading manner(refer ‘1. Risk rating’), and lodging a false formal complaint (outside her responsibility as a KO staff member) with MSD(who are also responsible for tenancies) and appears to be an effort to black mark our tenancy record, obstruct any future tenancy options and even place our tenancy at risk of termination.

Whereas the unruly neighbouring tenant as relocated very quietly, without Tribunal proceedings, an unblemished tenancy record absent of any breach notices despite being the source of the firebombing, AOS callout and dope smoking incidents (that escalated to racial abuse and physical assault due to the TM’s inaction). Refer 21. The unruly tenant is relocated’.

The TM’s targeted focus began as I spoke up against her failure to prevent/respond to the firebombing, the AOS callout and the dope smoking complaint -against a gang related dope smoking tenant- a tenancy that was under her responsibility.

Note, by the TM not preventing or taking appropriate action after the fact, also tarnishes
Porirua’s city’s reputation as a safe city.

The TM was trying to form the view that we are unruly and ‘bad’ tenants by discreetly noting a ‘threat level’ risk rating to the tenancy and lodging a formal false complaint with MSD Porirua(who also manage KO tenancies). Refer ‘9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy manager’.

The TM did this at a time when the Housing Minister made it very clear last year a tougher approach on unruly threatening tenants who will not be tolerated and there would be harsher measures in response and rightly so. In the last fortnight the outgoing KO CEO Matt Crockett, has supported a tougher approach to bad tenants (effectively lowering the threshold for tenancy terminations) so, perhaps KO will take dope smoking incidents more seriously next time?

In the history of our 50+year tenancy there has been no such inspection issues, breach notices, dramas from a KO TM, until this unruly and problematic TM showed up. Yet, the unruly neighbouring tenant was not subjected to any black mark on her tenancy record(or targeted effort) but was quietly moved on.

Additional note:
I had lodged numerous complaints regarding this former TM over 2 years ago noting antagonistic, targeted, petty approach to our tenancy and so, as of last year, made repeated requests to replace her.

This resulted in this unruly TM ramping up’ efforts to cause us stress, worry, disruption and place our tenancy at risk via numerous breach notices fashioned in such a way her claims were so general it ‘muddled’ the facts, became misleading and could have applied to anything.

The reason for this targeted approach was that I continued to hold her accountable for her negligence in preventing(and responding to) serious incidences originating from the unruly neighbouring tenant. In the last 3 years there were 3 serious life threatening incidences all originating from the neighbouring tenant ie a firebombing(published in the newspaper), an AOS callout, & dope smoking which then escalated to racial abuse and a physical assault toward my elderly mother due to the lack of action taken by the TM. This failure sent a clear message to the irresponsible tenant that they could get away with such unruly behaviour towards us.

Note, by the TM not preventing or taking appropriate action after the fact, also tarnishes
Porirua’s city’s reputation as a safe city.

As I continued to ask one question -What action did you take to prevent the above incidences from occurring and what action did you take after? She then began her ‘mission’ to place our tenancy at risk at a time when the threshold for tenancy terminations were lowered due to a tougher stance on ‘bad’ and ‘threatening’ tenants – a scenario which the TM tried to create with us. Refer ‘9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy manager’

**Points:

1. More a case of an unruly Tenancy Manager rather than an unruly tenant!
a, This TM’s objective was to make us appear as unruly tenants when it was more a case of an unruly TM who was more attentive to tenants of her own culture and dismissive of the ethnic/asian minorities, who took advantage of having no oversight on her actions and did not completely report all to her managers.

The TM did this at a time when the Housing Minister advised that KO will take a tougher approach to unruly threatening tenants.

Refer ‘9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy Manager’ and ‘13. June KO meeting’ where evidential correspondence confirming it was false was not provided to her manager.

b, The website Myrent.co.nz outlines the reasons to reject a tenant- I have noted 2 relevant reasons both of which would have been accepted had the TM succeeded in pressing her false complaint, which, only came to light when a single witness, amongst other collaborators, stated the truth.

‘a, They Refuse to Follow the Lease Terms ie failure in maintenance responsibilities etc
b, Negative References from Past Landlords
Checking references is a must. If a previous landlord tells you they were late on rent, caused damage, or were disruptive to neighbours, you don’t have to take the gamble.’

Question
a, Is a police complaint required before KO will to respond to reports of one off their tenant’s dope smoking in a KO rental?

2.The TM dismissed concerning activities originating from the unruly neighbour’s property ie threatening behaviour of visitors, AOS raid, firebombing and the dope smoking that escalated (due to inaction by the TM) into targeted and extreme racial abuse, physical assault against both my elderly mother(the tenant), and myself, an ethnic minority. These incidents could have simply been avoided had the TM done her job.

Yet she made more effort in highlighting ‘clutter’ in our home through inspections and
embarked on a mission to disrupt us/our lives with exaggerated inspection issues /numerous ‘threatening’ breach notices to make us appear as unruly tenants all because we held her accountable/responsible for neglecting to act on(or prevent) those incidents.

3.The gross negligence was confirmed when the firebombing, the AOS callout, and the dope smoking (aftermath) occurred in the first instance. Had the TM not been dismissive and done her job these both could have been avoided and, to make matters worse, there was no effective action taken afterwards.

4. Redacted log entries
The TM had made notes in our tenancy records/logs that were concealed from me (ie redacted) preventing me from assessing, disputing or defending against it. Because of the TM’s unethical actions, her ability to enter anything in the logs without scrutiny, it is important that we, as tenants, have access to the redacted entries in order to verify ‘correctness’ and to provide adequate defence during Tenancy Tribunal processes.

Incidents that I reported to the TM (where we were the victims) were treated dismissively and not noted in the tenancy logs. Yet, any actions placing us in the wrong were recorded or warranted letters and warnings.

Perhaps this was her way of ‘levelling’ out the onesided or ‘over reporting’ of certain ethnicities on crimes, breaches, and bad behaviour.

5. There was a failure by police regarding the retaliation of racial abuse, physical assault directed at both my mother and I from the unruly tenant’s property (where the TM provided no discouragement for such unruly behaviour).

The police advised me the offenders ‘were no longer in the area’ but despite my repeated requests they refused to clarify what they meant by that ie no longer in the street, no longer in Cannons Creek, or no longer in Porirua etc? Sometime later I encounter one of them(who carried out the racial abuse and assault) at the local supermarket.

This was a significant and disappointing failure by police because it could have been my mother who encountered the offender(who had targeted her). Another failure(dismissiveness) by police to provide clarification to ensure safety of an elderly resident/tenant /member of the ethnic minority.
Refer ‘20. Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

6. During the March inspection, after the TM agreed to stay out of the inspection, she told my mother, in private, that she would arrange to cut down the trees bordering the banked front fence line. Her advice to cut down the trees was ill-informed, ignorant, and even spiteful, lacking good judgement expected from a senior ko staff member. She ‘failed’ to see the trees have provided protection against wind, rain, sun and, especially, erosion, for over 30 years(as long as I have been maintaining them). Also, the City Council, this year, have started planting trees on the berms(not removing them) so the TM’s advice would not be a cost effective option.
Refer section ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’

7. Risk Rating. Earlier this year we discovered that the TM had applied a ‘threat’ risk rating to our tenancy which is KO’s way of assigning a ‘threat level’ to a tenancy/tenant. I was not aware of the existence of risk ratings for tenants but agree it is needed for the safety of KO staff /tradesmen. However, the rating in this case is misleading and was placed there in retaliation by the TM.

It was just by chance I found out from a tradesman on a maintenance callout that the TM had assigned a risk rating to our tenancy, indicating that we, the occupants, were ‘dangerous’ (threatening behaviour, etc). I was surprised and replied ‘I wasn’t aware of that but I had requested a change in TM’. The contractor replied ‘That’s probably why!’

If the TM considered me such a threat, that she felt that she needed to apply a ‘threat level’ risk rating, then went on to lodge a formal complaint(later confirmed as false) about my ‘threatening behaviour’ during Advocate meetings, she had the opportunity, at any time, to remove herself as our TM but she didn’t. In fact, she 'insisted' on conducting the March inspection - an action contrary to her ‘concerns of safety’ when dealing with me and applying the risk rating. She had no problem shouting us down(both my mother and myself) during the inspection.

Refer section ‘1. Risk rating(tenant threat level)’ & ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’ - where she insisted on conducting the inspection knowingly placing herself at apparent ‘risk’

8. A govt employee’s concerns dismissed by TM
This year I found out from a public servant who's job, related to the Courts, involves visiting residents at their homes, and that she had reported concerns for her safety, when visiting a specific KO property, to the very same TM, who dismissed her concerns and took no action. The public servant is of Indian descent.

9. The TM ignored a conflict of interest
A conflict of interest existed when she continued to be our TM while under complaint ie numerous formal complaints were raised against her allowing her the opportunity to conduct biased inspections resulting in exaggerated breach notices against us in return.

She even took it upon herself to investigate a complaint against herself and found it was unsubstantiated. Again, she dismissed concerns about a contractor couple(Chinese husband & wife) that were mis-treated by a tenant of another property.

The tenant’s expectation and the contractors intended work did not match (questioning the TM's competency) causing the tenant to berate the contractors/immigrant couple.

The appropriate response would have been to arrange another TM to conduct our inspections or investigate the above complaint against her.

The key points to my complaint was the mistreatment of the contractors by the neighbouring tenant(his ie behaviour). The TM found nothing amiss regarding the treatment of the contractors and determined I read the situation wrong even though I was there to witness it.
Perhaps, giving them a 'free pass' in the hopes they would reciprocate it for her- that is the nature of this TM. Refer section ‘12. Conflict of interest’

10. Change in TM
My repeated requests to have her removed as our TM remained disregarded for some time, giving the TM time to lodge a false complaint, assign a misleading risk rating to my mother’s tenancy and ‘force’ her way into one last inspection(which she agreed to stay out of) for an opportunity to issue one more breach notice.

Even when she was finally removed as TM which occurred only after the drama experienced at her last inspection (Refer ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’), she had started off a series of follow ups for the next TM ie breach notices based on ‘widely general’ inspection issues with unrealistic timeframes and threats of Tenancy Tribunal terminations.

I have never had to speak to any KO staff as I had done with this TM nor has my mother received numerous ‘breach’ notices, experienced such inspection issues, arguments, antagonism, and pettiness from a KO staff member in the last 50 years.

11. False complaint lodged by TM
In response to my numerous complaints about her and then a request for a change of TM last year she lodged a formal complaint to an Advocacy group I am a member of, claiming threatening behaviour during the meetings, which was later proven to be false due to a witness. She had made this complaint, outside her role as our TM, to the Advocacy group, the Branch Manager of Porirua MSD(the host of the Advocacy meetings) and my boss.

Also, using her senior position in KO, she not only managed to ‘influence’ members of the Advocacy group to support her complaint (who a significantly rely on social housing providers to achieve their performance objectives) but also the head of the Porirua WINZ branch(a personal/former college friend of hers).

Refer ‘9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy Manager’’ - the evidential correspondence exonerating me from any alleged claims made by the TM.

The TM did not reveal this evidence to her manager at the time nor by the time of my meeting with KO in June.

12. On immediately reporting to KO, in person, the racial abuse attack on my family (originating from the unruly tenant's home) I was told that KO can’t do anything unless police take action- yet TM’s can apply risk ratings without 3rd party confirmation and without even notifying their immediate boss or the tenant?

a, Is a police complaint required for KO to respond to such incidents to maintain tenant safety?

b, How does KO respond to reports of dope smoking in their tenancies?

13. We were also aware of the stories published in the News this year about the 2 KO tenancies- I understand were both Pacific Island families in the Porirua/Wellington area- that were terminated due to rent arrears in excess of $18,000. KO were slow to act allowing the arrears to escalate to that level, yet the TM was ‘proactive’ and very ‘’keen’ to address the ‘clutter’ issues in our home. Refer ‘5 KO slow to act -tenancy terminations over rent arrears’

a, Where were the 2 tenancies based exactly ie suburbs and what were the ethnicities of those tenancies?

b, Why did KO allow the rent arears to escalate to that level before taking action?

14. Strangely, enough having to deal with the TM’s behaviour and underhanded approach, and writing numerous formal complaints in response, has taken time from the yearly cleanup wasting a lot of my unpaid time unlike for the TM, who was prepared to spend as much paid time as possible writing very lengthy petty argumentative emails.

15. The TM has retaliated in response to my numerous complaints and repeated requests to have her removed as our TM through biased inspections, threatening letters, lodging false complaints, and misleading risk ratings. Her ‘proactiveness’ was also a way to obstruct my continued efforts to hold her accountable for failing to prevent the AOS callout, the firebombing and the dope smoking incidents -which escalated to racial abuse and physical assault due to KO’s inaction.

I am the one who repeatedly requested she be removed as our tm well before she created claims of being threatened by me, lodged a false complaint and applied a misleading risk rating yet she continued to show up at our doorstep to conduct inspections in an antagonistic manner.

Note that the TM briefly called my mother after the physical assault and did not discuss the matter with me and still has not-no one from KO has, despite being the registered contact for the tenancy.

16.There are other properties in Porirua East under the TM’s ’care’ that require more urgent attention than simple ‘clutter’ issues in our tenancy eg household goods dumped on berms, broken/missing fence palings - compromise security of yards placing children at risk of roaming dogs, unmaintained trees pushing fences out over onto public footpaths obstructing clear pathways.

At a meeting with KO this year I presented photo’s of the above examples but the TM didn’t bother to ask for the exact addresses.

I was told during the June KO meeting that the tenants hadn’t reported those repairs to KO.
I advised that all KO staff (or anyone) has to do is drive through a few streets in Porirua and they will clearly see urgently needed maintenance and repairs in KO properties.
To be told by KO that those outstanding repairs are due to not having notified KO of them is no excuse to leave them unresolved especially when the safety of toddlers are at risk and that the repairs are that visible.

This should be of special concern(and priority) to KO who shouldn’t have to wait for a call from the tenant to have such safety issues resolved. Yet here is the TM ‘proactively’ prioritising simple clutter issues in our dwelling.

Refer ’28 June KO meeting’

a, What does KO believe is the reason tenants haven’t notified KO of those repairs referred to above?

b, Why have those maintenance & repairs referred to remained outstanding for so long?

17. I have noticed a pattern of behaviour from this TM ie dismissive of complaints from minority groups, or those directed towards gang related tenancies, yet very keen when acting against minority groups.

The tendency of ethnic minorities not notifying KO of concerning issues comes from KO being generally dismissive of 'minorities' concerns. Refer to ’11. Dismissive nature'.

The TM’s interaction with ethnic minority tenants is concerning as she is more attentive to those of her own culture (and the major ethnic groups) and dismissive of the concerns of ethnic minorities which tend to be immigrants.

Refer to the Facebook link below.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/76063831...
'The Napier office is the worse for false faced females, who look after their relations first, but deny when they are confronted.'

After all these years, KO,(and HNZ) must be aware of the pattern when you place an ethnic minority family next door to a gang related dope smoking tenant ie resulting ie loud music, dope smoking, racial slurs, passive/direct intimidation, etc.

18. A disgruntled and biased TM was conducting inspections while a conflict of interest existed ie a request to have her removed as our TM and numerous complaints against her at the time she continued conducting inspections.

She was even allowed to investigate my complaint that questioned her own competence and professionalism only to dismiss the complaint as ‘miscommunication’ on my part.
Refer ‘12. Conflict of interest’ ie Chinese contractors and Point 9.

19. Historically, we haven’t been able to trust nor have confidence in KO staff/TM's to respect our privacy or confidentiality when 'observing' all our possessions and assets in our home during inspections.

This unruly TM was very interested in seeing our possessions /assets that we had in our home(to the point where she, without permission, photographed/videoed contents of my room then later advised she can’t delete them off the system as they had already been ‘processed’ on the system)- as an IT person I know that if you can add images/videoes to a system you can remove them also. This was unsettling for me and raised concerns of the security of our home- the reason why one of the entrances was intentionally blocked for many years as it was the entrance of choice for attempted break ins in the past and then to be told by the TM to clear the entrance was concerning as they had done nothing to ensure or preserve our safety or security in the past.

20. Regarding another complaint of mine of the unruly neighbour in 2024 about a previous dope smoking incident, I discovered sometime later at a KO meeting, that the TM had spoken on behalf of the neighbour when responding to my complaint (and were not the words of the neighbour herself) ie I had reported that our peace comfort and enjoyment had been affected due to the actions of the unruly tenant and the TM replied back stating the unruly neighbour had responded with the same point that her peace comfort and enjoyment were affected due to my actions(whatever that was- the dope smoking did not occur in our home) thus orchestrating a ‘stalemate’ on the matter and so the TM didn’t need to take any further action and the dope smoking continued and so the TM was able to return back to her comfortable chair/desk. Sometime later another dope smoking incident occurred leading to escalated racial abuse and assault against us.

21. The TM’s objective was to make us appear as unruly tenants when the truth of the matter was that it was a case of an 'unruly' TM who was covering up the unruly, threatening behaviour of the neighbouring tenant responsible for the AOS raid, firebombing and the dope smoking which escalated due to inaction by the TM resulting in us/ethnic minority family being targeted and subjected to extreme racial abuse and assault against my elderly mother by a visitor to the unruly neighbours home.

Note In the 50+ year history of my mother’s tenancy there has been no such inspection issues, breach notices, dramas from the TM, until this unruly and problematic TM became our TM. The TM did this at a time when the Housing Minister made it very clear last year that they will take tougher approach to unruly threatening tenants. Even last week the outgoing CEO,Matt Crockett, has supported a tougher approach to bad tenants (effectively increasing the chances of tenancy terminations). So, perhaps KO will take dope smoking incidents more seriously next time?

Refer link https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/36091371...

The TM was calculating in her actions even entered notes in our callcentre/tenant logs that are concealed(redacted) from me to prevent me from disputing or defending against it.

The Tenancy Tribunal require a record of unacceptable behaviour, who it was reported by and when, which I believe the TM has done yet disregarded recording details when I lodged authentic complaints against other tenants/incidents.

22. The police failed to take action despite having photographic evidence I provided them of the last dope smoking incident despite Kainga Ora advising me they can’t do anything unless the police take action. Refer 20. ‘Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

This small act of neglect (by KO also) has significant impact –allowing the continuation of intergenerational dope smoking (allowing toddlers to grow up in environments ensuring such activities are normalised ie drug use, marijuana, cannabis) reinforcing its place as a gateway drug and thereby allowing easier pathways to ‘harder’ drugs by upcoming generations(within KO homes). Refer 19. ‘Serious failings’.

23. The TM was allowed to conduct matters without adequate accountability. The fact KO did not remove her as our TM during the numerous formal complaints I had lodged gave opportunity for the TM to take an escalated approach towards us ie targeted, harassing, antagonistic approach, conduct biased inspections and refusing us the right to impartial treatment. She did so in such a general manner that any point she raised could be considered a breach in some way thereby exaggerating the issue.

24. June KO meeting
At a meeting this year with the TM’s Team Leader(TL) the following points were raised.

-I presented photos of several KO homes around the Porirua East area highlighting more urgent & longstanding required repairs than our ‘clutter issues’ ie household goods dumped on berms, damaged fencing ie buckled fencing due to overgrown trees hindering public footpaths, missing fence palings, compromising the security of the property and presenting safety concerns by roaming dogs that have access to toddlers playing in front yards etc

The response from KO was that the tenants hadn’t notified KO about them- my response was that these damages are visible to any attentive KO staff member driving through area.

If the TM exercises ‘proactiveness’ with my mother’s tenancy then why not for others in more need of repairs?

-I asked why would the TM send letters reminding tenants not to dump rubbish on the grass berms which is the City Council’s responsibility? I was advised ‘the TM was just being general’. Another example of the TM going outside her responsibilities.

- I presented evidential correspondence confirming the TM’s formal complaint (sent to MSD-branch manager of WINZ, the Advocacy group and my Advocacy boss) against me was false and defamatory. The correspondence had previously been sent to the TM herself, and the above parties but the TM had not notified her immediate manager of it.

I asked the TL whether she had received the correspondence to which she indicated she had not. The TM had not completely kept her boss informed of all that was going on.

a, What is the reason tenants haven’t notified KO of those repairs referred to above?

b, Why have those maintenance/repairs been outstanding for so long?

Because KO/the TM have failed in the past to ensure my mother’s safety why should we make easier access for intruders?

25. I only found out earlier this year that the TM had placed the risk rating on our tenancy indicating that it was an unsafe dwelling due to the occupants and any KO staff member or contractor their safety would be at risk.

I recall last year the housing minister advised that they will not tolerate any threatening or unruly tenants and there would be a tougher response taken.

So my question is why would this unruly TM take steps in a misleading manner to place our in at risk- one that existed for over 40 plus years
Refer 3. ‘Biased TM’.

26. The TM’s lack of action and safety concerns for my mother, the tenant, to prevent and respond to incidences afterwards resulted in racial abuse, and physical assault towards an ethnic minority family of a 50+ year tenancy.

27. In response of my complaints of her lack of action and responsibility for the incidences that occurred the TM started a process of targeted inspections and threatening letters.

Regarding the 3 incidences she had ‘failed’ to prevent them, then failed to take action after them, proven by the fact that the last incident occurred in retaliation (by the unruly tenant) against us for reporting dope smoking (involving racial abuse and physical assault).

The TM had many opportunities to prevent any further incidences originating from the unruly tenants property but still failed to take preventive action or dismissed them due to the gang related element.

28. The length of time taken to change the TM was unreasonable and damaging to us, caused ongoing stress, disruption, and escalation of incidents especially the March inspection drama. Refer 7. ‘The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’.

Obviously, the TM would have made an inaccurate/biased note in the tenant logs for this incident hence the reason for this information request to access the ‘redacted’ entries in the tenant logs.

Note: The relationship breakdown was acknowledged when KO sent another staff member to conduct the November inspection last year-refer section ‘Change Tenancy Manager’.Refer ‘15. Change TM’.

29. Bias KO staff
I have found that KO staff tend to be more supportive of tenants of their own culture in particular, Maori and Pacific Islander. Pacific Island staff, especially, who generally are church goers and so staff are more vulnerable to ‘social pressure’ from such community networks, to favor their own people, can be quite far reaching and extensive through their networks. Refer 4 ‘KO staff biased treatment’.

30. I realised many years ago, that HNZ/KO generally have come to treat us with tolerance rather than acceptance. I am accustomed to that in the workplace, and even social clubs, but from KO, a government landlord, is disappointing and disheartening and makes me wonder how they view(and treat) ethnic minority tenants in general.

This is coming from a ‘responsible’ landlord who, during the 2005 Community Renewal housing project, removed a bedroom during refurbishment and left us without a dedicated praying area, and then advised, while under oath, at the Tenancy Tribunal that they weren’t aware of a Hindu family/tenants requiring a praying area but they had fully ‘consulted’ all affected tenants before the refurbishment.

31. In the last 50 years KO never placed Indian tenants next door to us as KO were only interested in strengthening their own/certain communities and not ours, an ethnic minority family, and so we were subjected to unruly visitors to the neighbouring properties, dope smoking activities, and racial slurs etc -all of which KO would have forseen.
Refer ‘25. Strengthening Communities’

You create an environment where it is uncomfortable and discouraging for minorities to live.

The result is always the same when you place an ethnic minority family next door to a gang related tenancy ie loud music, intimidation, and, of course, racial abuse.

And when you keep the minorities ‘isolated’ you keep them vulnerable and subjected to submission via targeted racism, bullying and intimidation.

32.What KO has been doing in our area is only strengthening Maori and PI communities by creating clusters’ of those ethnic groups in KO tenancies and disregarding strengthening ethnic minority communities thereby further ‘minoritising’ such tenant groups.

40. No action taken by KO or police on the dope smoking(in front of toddlers) at unruly neighbours property served only to encourage retaliation towards us (which both police and KO would have forseen) which escalated to racial abuse and physical assault against us, a small indian family, an ethnic minority, with the TM still failing to take any effective action. Refer 20. ‘Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

33. A misleading risk rating was applied to our tenancy indicating we presented a threat to ko staff and contractors. Note there was no instances of AOS callouts, firebombing originating from our tenancy or any dope smoking ever.

a, Was a risk rating applied to the unruly tenant’s dwelling, if so, what was the rating and when was it applied?

34. Note: I was told by another neighbouring tenant’s son, this same TM tried to dismiss the son as the primary contact despite his elderly mother’s serious health condition.

The TM had tried to do the same with me and discredit me as a valid agent for my mother(via false complaint and risk rating) just so she could deal with my mother directly who has limited knowledge of her tenant rights, and is a vulnerable elderly person who is easily misled by the usual doubletalk from KO/govt agency staff.

**Sections:

1. Risk rating/Tenant behaviour:
Earlier this year I discovered that our TM had placed a concerning risk rating on our tenancy ie threatening behaviour and offensive language(none of which were exhibited by us), which is KO’s way of classifying the behaviour and ‘threat’ level of their tenants. I was not aware of any such risk rating for KO tenants but I agree there should be some indication for staff and tradesmen when visiting KO properties.

Refer ‘TM broke agreement to stay out of inspection’ where she insisted on conducting the inspection knowingly placing herself at apparent ‘risk’

It was just by chance I was told by a tradesmen on a maintenance callout that the TM had assigned a risk rating to our tenancy, indicating that we, the occupants, were ‘dangerous’, (threatening behaviour, etc). I was shocked and replied ‘I wasn’t aware of that and I had requested a change in TM’. The contractor replied ‘That’s probably why!’.

If the tm considered me such a threat, she felt that she needed to apply a negative risk rating, then went on to lodge a formal complaint(later to be confirmed as false) about my ‘threatening behaviour’ during Advocate meetings, she had the opportunity, at any time, to remove herself as our TM but she didn’t. In fact, she 'insisted' on conducting the March inspection - an action contrary to her ‘concerns’ and applying the risk rating. Refer ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’.

In our case, the rating is not only incorrect, but intentionally misleading, placed there, not because of an unruly tenant/occupant but by an unruly Tenancy Manager who retaliated against my request to remove her as our TM along with numerous complaints questioning her competence to do the job.

The crackdown on unruly tenants is designed to change tenant behaviour but because of the concealed risk rating it does not provide an opportunity to improve tenant behaviour-it only serves to benefit KO staff.

The problem is that the risk rating is concealed from the tenant and so disadvantages the tenant as it is onesided(in favor of KO), it denies the tenant opportunity to dispute the rating, improve their behaviour, affects the way in which KO/tradesmen interact with you, can be applied without the tenants knowledge (whether justified or not), impact on any future consideration by KO, and be a cause for potential indirect punitive measures while all unbeknownst to the tenant.

The Risk rating is too general, failing to accurately describe the actual threat level of a tenancy, allowing for misleading views(and hence decisions) to be made by any ko staff member that has access to it -which is not limited to staff in the local branches- this also includes the Tenancy Tribunal.

Lastly, it is in contrast to what would be expected of a fair and responsible landlord ie to make better tenants etc as their role is to encourage & ensure there are responsible tenants occupying their tenancies especially from Kainga Ora, the largest social housing provider in the country.

The risk rating is to ensure any KO staff/tradesman, are aware of the threat level the occupants present before entering the property ie aggressive, offensive behaviour or language etc and therefore staff/tradesmen are required to show up in pairs. Obviously, the objective is safety but so too should be any opportunity to remove any threatening element by encouraging the tenant to alter their behaviour.

When such a risk rating is applied there must be accuracy, accountability, transparency as well as responsibility by the TM to notify the tenant of the risk rating and the reason for it. By not doing so, you deny the tenants the opportunity to improve their behaviour and if they don’t improve their behaviour the longer the rating remains, and hence the longer the property remains a threat to KO staff and tradesmen. It also places the tenancy at risk of termination when tenant history is examined by the Tenancy Tribunal.

Another problem is that with a negative risk rating, contractors are required to attend in pairs and for what is usually a one man job will now cost KO more and so does not meet the organisation’s directive of being more cost effective and therefore more reason for it to be applied justly.

I feel the unjustified risk rating by the TM was designed to place our tenancy at risk, to jeopardise my efforts for any future tenancy options(such as adding my name to the tenancy agreement) and to disadvantage us in general as well as in retaliation to my complaints and request to have her removed as our TM.

Questions

a, The crackdown on unruly tenants is designed to change tenant behaviour -so why is the risk rating concealed from the tenant?

b, As a responsible landlord how are the tenants given the opportunity to become better tenants/to change their behaviour towards KO staff if they are not made aware of the risk rating?

c, Who, within KO, can apply/change a risk rating to a tenancy?

d, Who would have access to that information-within and outside of KO and who can that information be shown to?

e, Apart from visiting tradesmen etc who else is made aware of the risk rating for a tenancy- both within and outside of KO?

f, How is the risk rating verified?

g, What impact can it have on the tenant/occupants and in what other areas can the risk rating be used ie can it be presented at Tenancy Tribunal hearings as evidence?

h, Currently, how are tenants able to dispute an incorrect risk rating?
i, Why did she continue to remain our TM if she considered me that much of a threat?
j, Why didn’t she remove herself as our TM?

k, Why didn’t the TM apply a risk rating to the unruly tenant in the neighbouring property for being the source of the firebombing, the AOS callout, all due gang association?

l, Did the TM upgrade the risk rating at each subsequent event for the unruly tenant ie from firebombing, to AOS callout(with 10 standard uniformed officers spread down the street armed), to dope smoking (in presence of toddlers) that escalated to racial attack and physical assault towards an elderly Indian woman?

Yet, the TM didn’t hesitate to apply a risk rating to my mother’s tenancy(classing it as threatening tenancy) when reporting on simple 'clutter' issues

This supports my point that the TM is only there to support tenants of her own culture and not that of the ethnic minorities. Refer ‘11. Dismissive nature’.

m, Regarding the racial abuse/physical assault from the unruly tenants home, if KO has advised me that they do not act unless police take action then how does KO ensure their risk ratings for tenants is correct, if they do not obtain 3rd party confirmation?

It’s strange that tenants, in this situation, require 3rd party involvement/confirmation (ie police) yet KO don’t when it comes to them feeling/being threatened. KO advised me that they can’t act unless police take action.

n, Does KO agree that the tenant has a right to question any information held about them including the risk rating?

o, How long does the risk rating remain on the tenants record & under what conditions is it removed and by who?

p, What impact does it have on the tenant's/occupant’s Tenancy history record or future tenancies?

q, Who else has access to this risk rating ie within and outside of KO?

r, Clearly outline and explain the categories for risk ratings?

s, Will KO start to notify tenants of any change to the risk rating,if not, why not?

2. Redacted Logs:
Because of the questionable actions of our TM concerning our tenancy I asked for a copy of the tenancy/call logs.

I requested a copy of the logs on several occasions last year only for the TM to ignore the request and realised I would never get them while she remained our TM. She even refused to record a note in the logs at my request. I finally obtained them from another HSM but the logs were printed in such small text they were unreadable and after re-requesting them I received a copy only to find numerous redacted entries throughout.

I would like access to the redacted information in the tenancy logs on the following grounds:

a, Due to the questionable and dishonest actions of our TM ie the false complaint lodged against me and the misleading risk rating’ applied to our tenancy (in retaliation to requests to have her removed as our TM) I’m entitled to confirm the validity of the 'redacted' information.

Our TM had lodged a false complaint against me (refer above "/") where she used her position as Senior HSM to influence and ‘persuade’ other advocates (who rely heavily on social housing providers) to support her false complaint. This alone provides more reason to access the redacted information.

b, Falsifying, official KO information/records for the purpose of disadvantaging a tenant ie the misleading risk rating.

c, A tenant has the right to access any information held about them and be given the opportunity to ensure it is correct and factual and not the opinion of a disgruntled and biased TM who was allowed to conduct inspections while a conflict of interest existed ie numerous complaints against her, and a request to remove her as a TM.

d, If the TM is able to use her senior position to influence other advocates then she is most certainly able to do so towards other tenants. So, being able to assess information related to possible false complaints 'garnered' from other sources (including tenants) is essential in ensuring correct information is held by KO.

To put it simply, we have the right to correct any information held about us.

In the past I have reported/complained of concerning incidences about other tenants only to have them dismissed by this TM. She, disregarded a conflict of interest, and was allowed to investigate a complaint involving her (questioning her competence and impartiality) which she found to be ‘unsubstantiated’. Refer 12. Conflict of interest’.

She was allowed to get away with such actions as she did not keep her immediate boss informed of all that was going on and took actions that were unethical, detrimental to the tenant.

She was in a position where a power imbalance/abuse of power existed -which allowed her to record any information without verification or accountability, raise false complaints, apply misleading risk rating (and log entries?), conduct targeted inspections/breach notices, obstruct any chance of adding my name to the tenancy, all without being scrutinised and was designed to disadvantage us, place our tenancy at risk - at a time when tenancy terminations are more likely ie KO will take a harder approach towards ‘unruly’ tenants, which our TM has falsely made us out to be hence the need to access the redacted information. Currently, this information is accessible by any staff, decision makers, management within KO.

In light of the false complaint and misleading risk rating applied to my mother’s tenancy by the TM I request the redacted information revealed to me so that I can confirm its validity.

a, Why was the information redacted and what is the nature of the redacted information?
b, How has KO verified the redacted information?
c, In regards to I request the unredacted copy of the tenancy/call logs be provided to me.

3 Biased TM
I only found out earlier this year that the TM had placed the risk rating on our tenancy indicating that it was an unsafe dwelling due to the occupants and any KO staff member or contractor their safety would be at risk.
 
The Housing Minister, last year, advised they will take a tougher approach on unruly threatening tenants resulting in harsher consequences/ effectively lowering the threshold for tenancy terminations.

I’m concerned why the TM try to form the view that we are ‘unruly,threatening’ tenants by discretely recording a ‘threat level’ risk rating to the tenancy and lodging a formal false complaint with MSD Porirua(who also manage KO tenancies)- when there was none assigned to the unruly neighbour’s tenancy -the source of the firebombing, the AOS callout and the dope smoking in the presence of toddlers?

The TM’s state of mind during such actions regarding our tenancy needs to be considered along with the likelihood of her having done this to others during her term as senior HSM.

She failed to prevent the firebombing, AOS callout , dope smoking, racial attacks and assaults all originating from the same neighbouring tenancy.

Even in the incident where she dismissed any action against our unruly neighbouring tenant, their visitors who subjected us to physical assault and racial attacks because the TM didn’t take any action against them.

The TM made more proactive effort to address ‘clutter’ issues, when we are the apparent offenders, prepared to act on the ‘easy’ stuff but not incidents involving firebombings,AOS callouts, dope smoking, racial abuse and physical assault towards an elderly Indian woman, an ethnic minority, longterm tenant.

I only found out earlier this year that the TM had placed the risk rating on our tenancy indicating that it was an unsafe dwelling due to the occupants and any KO staff member or contractor their safety would be at risk.

I recall last year the housing minister advised that they will not tolerate any threatening or unruly tenants and there would be a tougher response taken.

4 KO staff biased treatment
I have found that KO staff tend to be more supportive of tenants of their own culture in particular, pi and maori staff. PI staff especially, who generally are church goers and so the ‘pressure’ to exercise favourtism can be quite far reaching and extensive.

Although, this is mostly by choice from the individual staff members(in my 20+ years of experience dealing with them directly) this might partly be due to staff(and their families) being ‘pressured’ by their external networks such as church, social groups and even gang ties. This pressure can be coercive (to the point where impacting KO staff decisions becomes normalised) but the main issue here is that it is not checked for (during application process applicants may not be asked if they, or family members have local gang associations) nor addressed by KO thereby allowing an ‘imbalance of’ or bias service towards certain tenants.

Regarding my point that the TM is more interested in helping her own people refer to the link below referencing this Facebook post…
https://www.facebook.com/groups/76063831...
'The Napier office is the worse for false faced females, who look after their relations first, but deny when they are confronted.'

a, During application process are KO staff asked if they, or family members have local gang connections and, if so, what action does KO take on it?

b, How does KO address the potential ‘pressure’ for favouritism from their own ethnic/ cultural/ gang associations?

c, On hiring staff were successful applicants ask of any gang associations and the potential conflict of interest ?

5 KO slow to act -tenancy terminations over rent arrears
A story in the News this year(2025) about 2 tenancies-I understand they both involved Pacific Island/Maori families in the Porirua/Wellington area- that were terminated due to rent arrears ranging from $18,000 to $24,000. As in this case, for serious matters, I find KO are typically slow to act allowing them to escalate unnecessarily. Had KO acted early tenancy termination could have been avoided. As in our case, had KO acted earlier and not have been dismissive, the AOS raid, the firebombing and the racial abuse and assault (directed at us) could all have been avoided.

This delayed response to take action at an earlier level results in escalation to the news which
in turn reinforces the negative stigma of Kainga Ora tenancies and their tenants.
Refer ‘23. Stigma of Kainga Ora tenancies-KO slow to act’

a, At what point does KO consider action to be taken on rent arrears -well before arrears reach $10,000 most certainly- ie At what point does it consider an excessive level of rent arrears?

6. An irresponsible TM:
Our previous TM did nothing to prevent the following incidences which all originated from the same neighbouring tenant; the firebombing -placing us/our home in danger, the AOS callout(occur when there is serious risk to life/firearms involved), and then my report to KO and police of dope smoking activity by visitors to that tenant’s home (a common occurance, where the fumes drift into our veranda & through open windows affecting our behaviour and wellbeing). This TM did nothing to prevent such activity and nothing after the fact.

-She has made more effort in pursuing the ‘clutter’ issues in our home than she has ever done in the last 3 years -doing little in response to life threatening, safety issues where we were the victims ie dope smoking, AOS raid, firebombing, racial abuse, assault all originating from the same neighbouring tenant - and to, complete the ongoing cycle of incompetence and dismissiveness, the TM even failing to act AFTER the fact.

She would rather target an ethnic minority tenant/family on clutter’ issues than hold the real culprits to account on far more serious actions.

She failed to prevent 3 major life threatening incidences ie the AOS raid, firebombing, & dope smoking, racial abuse, assault. If failure to prevent these incidences occurred then the least tenants expect is action taken after the fact -they even failed to do that for us-an indication to her approach towards an ethnic minority.

Realising that KO had failed their obligation as a landlord/to keep a longterm tenant safe they ensured the unruly tenant to relocated foregoing any tribunal process, termination, thereby preserving the tenant’s unblemished tenancy history record.

And now we find this TM attempting to put our tenancy at risk of numerous breaches revolving around ‘clutter’. A very targeted approach by a TM who favours tenants of her own culture who does little to ensure the safety of other tenants. Refer https://www.facebook.com/groups/76063831...
'The Napier office is the worse for false faced females, who look after their relations first, but deny when they are confronted.'

My complaints on other matters continued to be dismissed by this Tenancy Manager. I know of a government employee (of Indian descent) who is required to visit people in KO homes raised safety concerns when entering a particular Kainga Ora home- her concerns were dismissed by the same Tenancy Manager. Refer 11. Dismissive nature

In Porirua most govt employees, who live locally are usually(directly or indirectly) related or connected to gang associates and so are likely to dismiss any tenant complaint relating to gang association.

7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection:
The TM broke an agreement to stay out of the inspection. I advised her to remain out of the inspection & not enter the house, to ensure the inspection took place in a respectful, non confrontational manner, to avoid any confusion & antagonism from the TM as we have previously experienced.

In March this year, after I had, once again, requested to remove her as our TM and that no photo's/videos be taken in our home without my permission(as she had taken videos of our possessions without my permission in the past then refused to delete them off the KO system claiming it was ‘too late’ to do so), yet despite this, she showed up to conduct an inspection with a co-worker.

I reminded her of my request to remove her as our TM and that no photo’s/videos are to be taken in our home without consent. She advised that both requests had been declined and to check an email from her Team Leader. Regardless, I advised her that she is not allowed in our home but will allow her co-worker to conduct the inspection in her place instead and that any photos/videos need to be agreed to. Reluctantly, she agreed and the co-worker conducted the inspection in a respectful manner while the TM remained outside the front door.

After the internal inspection was completed, the back yard was then inspected and all was going well until the TM decided to run from the front of the house around to the back yard and took over the inspection and that is when the arguments, disputes, pettiness ,antagonism started.

Note: If she considered me such a threat (refer to false complaint to the Advocacy group and false risk rating she applied to our home) why did she; continue to show up for inspections, insist on conducting them and thereby wanting to remain our TM?

Conversely, if she didn’t feel threatened by me then the reason for the misleading risk rating and complaint to the Advocacy group(hosted by MSD) would appear to be an effort to disadvantage me and to justify either; terminating the tenancy, removing me from the dwelling, preventing me joining the tenancy agreement, or removing me as my mother’s support person/advocate for any possible tenancy process including tribunal hearings.

I discovered later that the TM advised my mother in private she would arrange to cut down the trees bordering the front yard. Her advice to my mother was short sighted, ill informed, impractical, and spiteful. As any experienced senior TM would have known for typically drafty housing stock in Porirua, the trees provided essential shelter from the wind, rain, cold and sun. She should also have known that because the trees are located on a bank, they prevent erosion and thus stop the bank from collapsing. I have grown the trees to provide protection against the wind, rain,cold ,sun & erosion for 30+years. Furthermore, the City Council have, just this year, planted additional trees along the berms in front of properties, so it doesn’t make any sense for the TM to, contrary to the council’s efforts, want to remove the trees in the front yard and, at more cost to KO.

The TM had decided to raise inspection issues with my mother despite being aware that I am her agent and the primary point of contact- this was to avoid previous ‘miscommunication issues’ experienced with the TM previously.

From the very start as our TM we had experienced ‘miscommunication’ issues. And so she was advised not to communicate directly with anyone but myself and not directly with my elderly mother at all.

a, Why would the TM advise my mother that she would arrange to cut down the trees bordering the front yard knowing that the houses in the area were historically drafty and the trees served as protection against the elements? Especially, when KO refuses to replace the windows/windows frames and, instead, opt for perishable foam draft strips or wood trims along the edges. Yet, it was ok to pay the cost of cutting down the trees unnecessarily?

b, Why would the TM want to sacrifice the shelter belt the trees have always provided amongst typically drafty housing stock just to increase visibility into the yard ?

Everytime I issued a letter of complaint about the tm she would respond with a breach/ warning letter.

c, Why did she not get someone else to conduct the March inspection if she felt so threatened by me?

d, Why did she not remove herself as our TM if she felt so threatened by me?

8. The TM visited the unruly tenants home by herself against protocol, without the safety of another staff member, causing an altercation between tenant and her daughter:
On one occasion Sene had visited this unruly tenant's home on her own(without the safety of another a work colleague as per KO policy) and spoke to both tenant and her daughter which then caused a physical altercation between the unruly tenant and her daughter. I ran over and stopped the altercation from escalating towards the TM who was standing there completely motionless. Note: Later on, the TM went on to say that I contributed nothing to the incident and that she herself was not in any danger. Refer ‘14. to TM’s state of mind’.

It appeared that the TM had said something to aggravate the tenant causing her to attack her own daughter. This supports my point that this TM antagonises tenants at times. Another neighbouring tenant was also antagonised by this TM's approach.
Refer ‘8. The TM visited the unruly tenants home by herself against protocol..’.

If a risk rating was present for the tenancy where the firebombing and AOS callout occurred, there was even more reason for her to to be accompanied by another staff member. Instead, she attended that property alone, said a few words, sparking a physical altercation between unruly tenant and tenant’s daughter in which I intervened to end it.

If the TM is strictly adhering to standards for us then we would expect the same from her.
It is standard procedure to attend properties in pairs and she was required to do so for safety reasons-and here she is raising non-compliance issues with our tenancy.

A misleading risk rating was applied to our tenancy indicating we presented a threat to KO staff and contractors. Note there was no instances of aos callouts,firebombing originating from our tenancy nor was there any instances of dope smoking.

a, If a risk rating was present for the tenancy where the firebombing, AOS callout and dope smoking occurred(ie the unruly tenant’s home), why did the TM visit the property unaccompanied by another staff member?
b, At this time, was there a risk rating(more serious than ours) assigned to the unruly tenants dwelling- the source of the AOS callout, the firebombing and the dope smoking?

If not, why not, as there was one placed on ours for far less serious reasons?

c, Why did the TM visit the unruly tenants property by herself when procedure was to attend with another staff member?

d, Did the TM consider herself under any threat or danger when she visited the unruly tenants property?

9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy manager
(Tenancy Manager had lodged a false complaint outside her responsibilities as our TM/a Kainga Ora staff member)

A false complaint was lodged by our TM in retaliation for the numerous complaints I lodged against her over a 2 year period along with a formal request to have her removed as our TM - something she was not happy about as it was the first time a tenant had made such a request concerning her.

The Tenancy Manager went beyond the purview of her role as our KO TM/SHSM to lodge a complaint against me which was later proven to be false. The complaint was made to the Advocacy group I am a member of and also to the head of the Porirua branch of MSD(the host of the Advocacy meetings).

The concerning thing is that because of her senior position as SHSM and the significant reliance social workers place housing providers she managed to ‘influence’ other members of the Advocacy group to support her false complaint with a few members even going as far as claiming to ‘witness’ the alleged behaviour.

The concerning thing is that she used her senior position within KO, a social housing organisation, and the significant reliance social workers place housing providers to ‘influence’ the support of her complaint with other members of the group- who I have never had any dealings with. These members were mainly social workers who rely heavily on social housing providers for their own clients(and to achieve their own individual performance objectives).
And because of her position and influence, she not only managed to ‘persuade’ members of the Advocacy group to support her complaint but also the head of the Porirua WINZ branch(a personal/former college friend of hers). Several social workers even went as far as stating they had ‘witnessed’ the claimed threatening behaviour from me during these meetings- not knowing at the time that I had, in fact, only ever attended 2 meetings, months apart, within a 6 month period. Eventually, a witness present at all the meetings confirmed the claims weren’t true and that my behaviour was appropriate

Despite her actions being both unprofessional and unethical she was not ever held accountable for it due to being 'protected' by KO managers nor was an apology or discussion ever offered by KO at all on the matter.

In addition, the specific points of her complaint mirrored my previous complaints against her ie threatening, aggressive behaviour & shouting etc.

My advocacy role, which I do on a voluntary(unpaid) basis, helps people out of hardship (which the TM had placed at risk while in her position as a senior TM/SHSM- a paid role), and attend monthly meetings with social & mental health workers, and advocates from various organisations who all do important and vital work for the community and who all rely heavily on housing providers(such as this senior TM).

During these difficult times with unemployment, housing/rental markets, cost of living ie food, clothing in general etc, the need for advocates in various sectors is greater now than ever when interacting with govt agencies such as MSD or KO. Despite this, the TM didn’t hesitate to put my role at risk all for the sake of retaliation.

She had reported that I was such a threat to her that she didn't 'feel safe' attending the advocacy meetings in my presence(yet continued to remain our TM to conduct regular inspections in my presence).

I sent letter of complaint(24/4/25) on the matter to the TM’s manager to which I have received no formal response at all. In addition, I had provided a copy of correspondence from a 3rd party(sent to the TM, MSD and the Advocacy group at the time) verifying a witness present at both meetings had confirmed that my behaviour was appropriate- disproving the claims made by this TM. A copy of this correspondence was later presented at an April KO meeting to the TM’s manager. On asking the TM’s manager whether she was aware of this correspondence she indicated she was not. So, the TM had concealed from KO certain actions she had taken against tenants. The TM had not kept her boss/KO informed of all that was going on.

a, Why didn’t KO managers take action against the TM’s false complaint (and therefore risk rating) made to MSD and the Advocacy group at the time of our meeting with KO in April?

b, What action has been taken regarding the false complaint by the TM?

c, I have yet to receive an apology for the false and defamatory complaint. Why have I not received one yet and will KO provide one?

d, If the TM felt unsafe in my presence to the point where she had assigned a misleading risk rating then formally lodging a false complaint (outside her purview as a KO TM)-both affecting the way we are viewed (and treated) by KO and contractors- then why didn't she remove herself as our TM?

e, Why did she insisted on taking part in the March inspection which ended badly?
Refer ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’.

f, Why did she continue to be antagonistic towards us if she felt that threatened by me?

10. Defamatory complaint
The TM’s defamatory complaint potentially could have had very serious and lasting impact on me/my character, and hence my family thereby affecting my future;

i The TM had made these false claims with the intention to exclude me being a rep for my mother(as well as other tenants), and even from meetings and Tenancy Tribunal hearings. This would allow her to communicate with my mother directly - who has limited knowledge of her tenants rights and as a vulnerable elderly person struggles with the 'doubletalk' generally used by KO staff in the past.

Note: From the very start we often experienced miscommunication problems with our tm and found her to be manipulative and deceptive.

i, I describe the TM’s conduct as "even more harmful" because the riskrating portrayed me as a threat to others and was coupled with a defamatory formal complaint, later proven to be false. I have yet to receive any apology from KO who have offered none nor any response on the matter to date.

Typically, KO/TM have been quick to act (TM’s persistant efforts against us) when we, the tenants are at apparent 'fault' but remain silent and inactive when they are in the wrong.

a, Will KO offer an apology for the false/defamatory complaint lodged by the TM?

11. Dismissive nature
I was told by a public servant who's court related job involves visiting residents in their homes, that when she reported concerns for her safety when a particular KO property to the very same TM I refer to, her concerns were dismissed and no action was taken.

This was another irresponsible act from the TM, to dismiss ANY such concerns, especially, when she herself expressed ‘concerns’ for her own safety when visiting our home to the point where she assigned a false risk rating to the tenancy & then lodged a formal complaint against me(later found to be false) to the Advocacy group.

Ironically, here she is dismissing, a safety issue of greater concern, expressed by this public servant. The above mentioned public servant is of Indian descent also. This was typical of dismissive responses I myself have received from this TM in my dealings with her.

Her dismissive nature/approach was evident by the fact that the firebombing, AOS callout and dope smoking incidents occurred in the first instance followed by the racial abuse and physical assault against my mother.

The pattern here is the TM responds in the same dismissive way when concerns of safety of others are brought to her attention, where the at-risk party is of Indian or minority descent. Yet, she doesn’t hesitate to take action against an alleged ‘offender’ of Asian /minority descent allowing her own ‘people/tenants’ to get away with unruly behaviour and at the same time, make it appear that the unruly behaviour does not originate from the same ethnic group as it historically has done.

Refer to the Facebook link below.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/76063831...
'The Napier office is the worse for false faced females, who look after their relations first, but deny when they are confronted.'

12. Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest existed when she was allowed to remain our TM, while being the subject of numerous complaints lodged against her over a period of atleast 12 months (which were never formally responded to), and she continued conducting biased inspections and raising exaggerated petty issues justifying (misleading) breach notices.

While these complaints were being looked into she should have excused herself or been removed as our TM and not be involved in further inspections.

While a conflict of interest remained when she was our tm she should have excused herself or been removed as our TM and not be involved in further inspections until the complaints against her were resolved.

She even took it upon herself to investigate a complaint against herself and found it was unsubstantiated. Again, she dismissed my concerns(and complaint) about a contractor couple(husband/wife -Chinese) that I witnessed being mis-treated by a tenant of another property who were subjected to loud, condescending, ridicule due to confusion over the exact work that needed to be done by the contractors which didn’t meet the tenants expectations – work that was poorly arranged by the TM due to ‘miscommunication’ issues. The TM had decided I was wrong about what I had witnessed-so, I guess there was no reason for the yelling, arguing and berating from the tenant?

The complaint highlighted the poor communication from the TM -something we experienced firsthand when she initially became our TM and then continued experiencing throughout our interaction.

a, Why wasn’t the TM excused from her role as our TM during the conflict of interest/ complaints against her?

b, Why didn’t KO or the TM arrange for another TM to investigate a complaint against her ie why was she allowed to investigate her own complaint?

c, In this situation what is KO’s process where a conflict of interest occurs?

13. June KO meeting
At a meeting this year with the TM’s Team Leader(TL) the following points were raised.

1, I presented photos of several KO homes around the Porirua East area highlighting more urgent & longstanding required repairs than our ‘clutter issues’ ie household goods dumped on berms, damaged fencing ie buckled fencing due to overgrown trees hindering public footpaths, missing fence palings, compromising the security of the property and presenting safety concerns by roaming dogs that have access to toddlers playing in front yards etc

The response from KO was that the tenants hadn’t notified KO about them- my response was that these damages are visible to any attentive KO staff member driving through area.

If the TM exercises ‘proactiveness’ with my mother’s tenancy then why not for others in more need of repairs?

2, I asked why would the TM send me a letter advising tenants not to dump rubbish on the grass berms - which is the City Council’s responsibility? I was advised ‘the TM was just being general’. And herein lies the problem- the TM’s letters, breach notices were so general in nature they were vague, misleading and could apply to anything. It also explains the tendency for the TM to act outside the purview of her responsibilities- yet, another example of the TM going outside her responsibilities.

3, I mentioned that I know KO support strengthening communities yet they appear only to be strengthening certain/their own communities and not that of ethnic minorities. Having lived there for over 50 years we have seen many tenants come and go from the neighbouring properties, predominantly Maori or Pacific Island, yet, not once, in the last 50 years, have KO ever placed an Indian tenant next door to us. Refer 25. Strengthening Communities’.

4, I presented evidential correspondence confirming the TM’s formal complaint sent to MSD(branch manager of WINZ), the Advocacy group and my Advocacy boss, against me was false and defamatory. The correspondence had previously been sent to the TM herself, and all other parties involved. I asked the TL whether she had received the correspondence to which she indicated she had not -the TM had not completely kept her boss(TL) informed of all that was going on ie actions taken against tenants.

a, What is the reason tenants haven’t notified KO of those repairs referred to above?

b, Why have those maintenance/repairs been outstanding for so long?

14. TM’s state of mind
It is not fair for KO to leave the issues around the false complaint and the misleading risk rating go unaddressed and the TM not be held accountable for her actions, which were both unethical and unprofessional, as those actions demonstrated the TM’s state of mind when it came to ‘managing’ my mother’s tenancy which involved numerous ‘breach letters’, targeting us when other dwellings required priority ie such as the dwelling(199) where the fire occurred due to faulty wiring recently. Refer to link https://fyi.org.nz/request/33123-kainga-...

KO sent a Wellbeing manager(instead of another Tenancy Manager) to carry out an inspection last year. It appears that KO are trying to suggest the problem is more than just a ‘clutter’ issue regarding us yet they haven’t addressed the TM’s state of mind mentioned above. Refer ‘15. Change TM’

This is despite advising ko that the constant dope smoking fumes drifting over the fence and through our doors and windows over the years from various tenants have not only impacted our wellbeing and health but our behaviour also, causing irritability, mood changes, headaches (sometimes nausea), all affecting our ability to concentrate and live in peace.

We have endured this for so many years as it appears gang associated, dope smoking tenants tend to be a preferred choice for ko when placing neighbouring tenants.

Please provide a copy of any notes as result of the Wellbeing Manager’s visit in November last year.

Surely, the TM needed to speak to someone similar with consideration to her 'state of mind' when she decided to lodge a false complaint, note a misleading and concealed risk rating on my mother's tenancy?

a, Has the TM been questioned regarding her state of mind and her actions in lodging a false complaint and noting a misleading, concealed risk rating to the tenancy?

b, What action has been taken regarding the TM lodging the false complaint?

c, Will KO consider providing me an apology for the stress, and humiliation caused by it?

15. Change TM
The TM was changed after March 2025 but only after having to lodge numerous complaints against her regarding miscommunication, pettiness, antagonism, harassment, targeted behaviour, threatening vague breach notices in retaliation to my complaints, and a significant ‘drama’ (refer ‘7. The Tenancy manager broke an agreement to remain out of a scheduled inspection’) but these indications of a breakdown in relationship with TM occurred well before that which should have been identified by other KO staff last year and the TM changed much earlier on.

Indications of relationship breakdown.
1, Numerous written complaints over 1.5 years (atleast) outlining miscommunication, pettiness, antagonism, a targeted & harassing approach, then eventually yelling from the TM at her last inspection.

2, KO sent another person to conduct the inspection last November- after a complaint to the local MP’s office. However, I found out later that this staff member wasn’t a TM but a Wellbeing Manager.

It appears that KO are trying to suggest the problem is more than just a ‘clutter’ issue regarding my mother’s tenancy -couple that with a false complaint and a misleading risk rating – a prompting for a response by certain authorities perhaps? Yet KO still haven’t addressed the TM’s state of mind referred to in section 'Serious Failings' and ‘TM’s state of mind’.

3, There was our TM’s (fabricated and failed) complaint to my Advocacy group (refer ‘9. False complaint lodged by Tenancy Manager’) and MSD themselves, where the TM tried to orchestrate a certain scenario by casting specific aspersions on my character – just because I dared to question, challenge and hold her accountable for her actions (or inactions).

Had the TM succeeded in her false complaint it would have justified her to decide my mother as the primary contact and not myself (as she initially preferred) due to my mother’s limited knowledge of tenant rights and inability to understand the verbal ‘doubletalk’ we experience from KO staff, which I found challenging at times also.

On speaking to another neighbouring tenant’s son, this same TM tried to dismiss the son as the primary contact despite his elderly mother’s serious health condition.

a, At what point does KO determine there is a relationship breakdown between tenant and TM?

b, When was the earliest KO could have, even slightly, suspected that the TM wasn’t doing her job effectively - when the TM failed to prevent (or allowed) the firebombing & AOS raid to occur in the first place over 2 years ago?

c, What was the reason KO decided to change previous TM?

d, The TM was changed after March this year- why did it take so long before KO decided to change our TM?

By refusing to change TM’s in a timely manner you are responsible for the incidents that occurred as it was clearly obvious the TM was not able to prevent them nor take appropriate action after the fact. These are NOT the actions of a responsible landlord.

16. Longstanding ’Authority to act’ on my mother’s behalf denied by KO (whenever I raise issues or hold them accountable).
Despite KO having on file an EPOA(Enduring Power of Attorney form) for over 20 years I was advised by the call centre operator that I don’t have consent to act on my mother’s behalf.

Sometime after March this year and removing SRT as our TM I contact the call centre to report a maintenance problem and was surprised to be told that I don’t have authority to do so.

A dispute began with the operator when she advised that I never had authority to do so- giving KO more reason to justify the risk rating & the false complaint/claims of threatening behaviour etc.

I received no response when I pointed out that if I never had the authority to act on mothers behalf then for the last 15 years KO have breached my mother’s privacy rights as I have dealt with KO on EVERY aspect of my mother’s tenancy for over 25 years. After making this point, I received a call from another staff member to advise the problem was that the authority expires every 2 years on their system which I found strange as my ‘Authority’ is an Enduring Power of Attorney.

When checking MyKaingaora at the time, it clearly showed the Authority form as current. There should be a note on the logs made by the operator on the day to reflect the discussion.

I have experienced this situation several times since 2005 whenever I was outspoken, critical, or held KO staff accountable of any wrongdoing due to staff competency, including their 2005 community renewal housing project where suddenly the authority to act on my mother’s behalf ‘disappeared’/was not on file and so advised they will only communicate directly with my elderly mother who has limited knowledge of her tenancy rights.

In the 2005 Housing Renewal project in Porirua east, of which some refurbishments were done hastily and ‘on the cheap’ which I described at the time as ‘ What’s the point of a freshly painted door if the door doesn’t close properly?’. Years later, on replacing the carpet, we discovered that, for our home atleast, they had used another layer of carpet instead of underlay.

a, Can KO confirm that any such ‘Authority to act’ form for KO tenants expires every 2 years?

b, Does KO have the authority to place an expiry date(of 2 years) on an ‘Enduring Power of Attorney’ (EPOA) document?

17. Firebombing
The firebombing was result of yet another boyfriend of the tenant’s daughter allowed to live in the property where, the couple split up and so the tenant’s home was targeted by a disgruntled ex-boyfriend who was a gang member.

I understand he has since been dealt with by the police but only because the incident was publicised in the Dominion Post.

Again, Kainga Ora failed to act, before the firebombing, on my repeated reports of, while the boyfriend was living there, loud music,racial remarks towards us, and dope smoking.
Kainga Ora failed to act on the tenant’s lack of ability(and responsibility) to control the behaviour of visitors to her home(and there were several over a 3 year period involving different boyfriends and visitors) all resulting in loud music,racial abuse, and dope smoking.

In all the years our have lived there not once did we ever have an incident of a firebombing of a KO house.

A first of its kind all because of the tenant’s irresponsible and careless nature encouraged by KO’s lack of action.

18. AOS callout
The AOS raid on the neighbouring tenant(along with teams of armed standard police officers surrounding the property and down the street) breached the dwelling to capture a visitor that had been living there for a while who was gang related.

Ironically, the offender looked very similar in appearance to me – height, hair, facial features even same colored bush shirt(coincidence?), where the AOS could have just as easily mistaken me for the offender.

- AOS are called in when there is serious risk to life or firearms involved.

In all the years our have lived there not once have we ever had armed standard police officers on our street(or AOS) let alone at a neighbouring property.

A first of its kind all because of the tenant’s irresponsible and careless nature encouraged by KO’s lack of action.

a, How long does it take KO/the TM to take action?
b, What action did the TM SRT) take to prevent this from happening?
c, What action did she take after the incident -to prevent further future (life threatening) incidents?

19 Serious failings
There were ‘serious failings’ on multiple occasions by KO/TM & the police regarding the dope smoking incident where they accepted the ‘offending’ parties account at face value, failed to ask the most basic questions and perform minimal reasonable action expected in this situation.

Typically, with us, they left it too late before taking any action at all forcing us to endure prolonged stress, threats and ongoing concern for our safety and our home(refer ‘24. The effects of ‘Causal dismissiveness’) ie not only regarding the extended delay in changing our TM but also that same TM’s refusal to take action preventing the 3 life threatening incidences, her failure to act on my complaints beforehand, and finally her response(ineffective as it was) after the incidents, had made no difference and provided no deterant to the unruly tenant allowing them permission’ to escalate their actions to racial abuse and physical assault towards us -of which both agencies failed to take any action against. Refer to ’18. AOS callout’

i, The TMs failure to act resulted in an AOS callout, a firebombing incident and dope smoking (in front of toddlers), with racial abuse and physical assault directed at us all originating from the unruly neighbouring tenant.

ii, the TM failed to question another neighbour who witnessed the racial abuse and assault directed toward my mother and myself.

iii, The police chose not to adequately question or act even for the sake of the toddlers present during the dope smoking incident. Refer ‘20. Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

iv, The TM downplayed an assault on me advising that it was a ball of paper thrown at me- paper does not make a cracking sound when hitting the ground. She questioned the offending tenant(the unruly neighbour) and not me before determining her decision.

v,The TM repeatedly failed to act (when we were the victims) resulting in an AOS callout, the firebombing (placing several properties at risk),& dope smoking even doing very little with the retaliatory response of racial abuse, assault towards an elderly indian tenant.

vi, Police ‘losing’ the most important information of all- the incriminating evidence- a photograph confirming drug use and a ‘bong’.
Refer 20. ‘Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

vii, Later, on pressing for action by the police, they just advised us that the offenders were no longer in the area. I then repeatedly asked for clarification on whether that meant they were no longer in the street, the suburb or the city as my mother could still be risk? The police refused to provide any clear response. Sometime later I encounter one of the offenders at the local supermarket.

Police intentionally misled us by advising us the offenders were no longer in the area only for me to see one of them in the CBD area. This was very concerning, dismissive and negligent of the police who disregarded my mother’s safety because it could have been her who encountered the offender? It was the same offender who directed a tirade of racial abuse at her as well as assault her.

Some of these ‘failings’ would have been prevented if KO had liased with police regarding the dope smoking incident.

As an experienced KO staff member, and Senior HSM, the TM had an independent duty to ensure appropriate action was taken to investigate alleged criminal behaviour and other misconduct by the unruly tenant -her failure to do so resulted in the AOS callout, firebombing and the dope smoking incident all placing our tenancy at risk as well as others.

The TM and the police failed to exercise independant judgment and take any necessary action to ensure the safety of my mother (as well as the toddlers present during the dope smoking incident) to discourage further unruly/inappropriately tenant behaviour.

The failure to take appropriate action ensures intergenerational dope smoking continues within KO tenancies as well as the wider community.

While ‘dope smoking’ may be a relatively minor offence in the police’s view but it is a gateway drug to harder drugs.

We have endured the dope smoking from the unruly neighbours dwelling for several years, it occurs whenever her friends/visitors have no where else to do it.
The problem for us has always been that the fumes drift over the fence and into our home, through our windows, affecting us both. My response was to yell out or text the neighbour to smoke it elsewhere but to no avail.

I had refrained from notifying KO due to their dismissiveness but on this occasion I reported the dope smoking to the police as it was occuring in the presence of young toddlers.

20. Dope smoking reported to KO and police.
Visitors would regularly show up at the unruly tenant’s home to engage in dope smoking activity and I had given up informing KO of it but on this occasion I reported it to the Porirua Police and KO as it took place in the presence of toddlers.

A common past occurance, where the fumes would drift into our veranda & through open windows affecting our behaviour causing agitation and headaches.

Within the hour the police had visited the property afterwards they called me while they were still outside neighbour’s home and advised they found no evidence of dope smoking having tried entering the property through the front door but were denied permission by the tenant(as police had no evidence at that stage). I asked why check the front entrance when had I reported the activity occurring in the back yard veranda? They replied they don’t have permission to enter on to the property. I advised they didn’t need to enter the property as they just needed to look over the back fence to see the dope smoking/use of a bong taking place. I then advised the officer that I have a photo of the 2 males using a bong, the officer, taken aback by this, advised he will look at the photo when he returns to the Police station. No further action was ever taken by police.

I’m assuming that the photograph provided ‘just cause’ to enter the property so unsure why the officer didn’t ask to see the photograph while he was still at the property?

On reporting it to KO the TL advised they can’t do anything unless the police take action despite providing photograph evidence to KO.

Because the tenant realised KO/TM weren’t taking any action the occupants retaliated against my mother and myself. Resulting in racial abuse, physical assault against my mother and still the TM failed to take any action. Refer 20. ‘Dope smoking reported to KO and police’.

The police failed to take action despite having photographic evidence from me and, because Kainga Ora advised they can’t do anything unless the police take action, I arranged a meeting with the Police at the Mana Electorate office to discuss the dope smoking incident etc and I was disappointed to discover that the evidence I had provided was not on police files - the most important information of all ie the incriminating photographic evidence -was missing from the Area Commander’s file. This came to light when she asked what evidence I was referring to? On explaining to her that I had sent photographic evidence via the 105 online police channel, as well as a copy provided directly to KO, which the representative from the Electorate’s office also viewed. Somehow, this evidence was 'not on police file' and so no further action was ever taken by police or other parties involved. Nothing ever eventuated from this meeting with the Area Commander.

This suggests that both KO and police did not liase with each other early on in the matter at all and that no note on police records confirming photographic evidence was made. KO was initially provided the photographic evidence and had there been a discussion between the 2 agencies it would have revealed to police that evidence of dope smoking in the presence of toddlers existed.

I was later told by police that the 2 males involved were no longer in the area. For the safety of my mother, I then sought, repeatedly, clarification on what they meant by ‘no longer in the area’ ie no longer on our street, our suburb, or our city but received no further response.

Months later, I saw one of the offenders at the local supermarket- still in the area- so much for safety of an ethnic minority elderly woman.

In all the years our have lived there not once did we ever see dope smoking blatantly carried out within the presence of toddlers, an AOS callout, a firebombing despite stopping a physical altercation between tenant and daughter in the presence of this TM ensuring the safety of the TM at the same time.

A first of its kind all because of the tenant’s irresponsible and careless nature encouraged by KO’s lack of action. Refer ‘19. Serious failings’.

a, What is the process when a report of dope smoking is made to KO about an existing KO tenant by other tenants(who may or may not be KO tenants)?

21. The unruly tenant is relocated:
The unruly tenant relocated but not after the damage was already done ie the firebombing, AOS callout, and the dope smoking incident, racial abuse and physical assault against a longstanding tenant and member of the ethnic minority community.

At what point did this TM/KO decide it was finally enough?

The relocation was not a result of any breach notice, or Tenancy Tribunal action initiated by the TM, and so preserved her ‘unblemished’ tenant history record yet, for us, we have the same TM issuing numerous breach notices for ‘clutter’ in my mother’s tenancy.

a, Regarding the 3 incidents why didn’t the TM issue any breach notices to this unruly tenant?

22 Tenant behaviour
i, https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/03/19/callo...

ii, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kainga-ora...

Regarding the 2 News links above, one(poverty action group) in response to the other (crackdown on 'Bad' KO tenants). It is a fact that ongoing financial hardship and poverty impacts on self-esteem, personal wellbeing (caused by mental/financial stress and, of course, hunger), and ultimately a person's/family's behaviour. By placing them in further hardship and penalising them for being poor does not solve the problem and only serves to increase homelessness.

It is very hard for an adult to 'change their behaviour' when a victim of ongoing financial hardship and poverty. Perhaps replacing the minimum wage with the living wage, then waiting 3 years to determine whether removal of the ‘Sustaining Tenancies Framework’ is still necessary, would have been a more sensible approach to take rather than going for 'quick results' that, effectively, see tenants punished for being poor.

Of course, there is a small portion of KO tenants that are genuinely 'bad' and do not care about the property they live in and they should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities but no need to tar all KO tenants with the same brush for the actions of a few.

We are very lucky to have ‘social housing’ available in New Zealand but having a roof over one’s head is a basic human right in this country, not a privilege, and, of equal importance, is that the decision makers need to be able to identify these basic human rights and those that fail to do so, do not understand poverty.

If you increase homelessness you place more pressure on emergency housing, MSD and tax payer funded resources. By comparison, we could say it is a privilege to have a job in Kainga Ora or is it a basic human right to have a job in NZ? And was our former TM taking an advantage of her senior position in KO?

23 Stigma of Kainga Ora tenants and properties-KO slow to act
1. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wellington...

Regarding the News story outlined in the above link casting a bad name on KO tenancies(and subsequently KO tenants) in general, for the sole reason that KO were 'slow to act' on addressing a relatively simple matter thus perpetuating the negative growing stigma of KO tenancies and their tenants associated with 'bad behaviour'.

Refer 5 ‘Slow to act on arrears/tenancy terminations over rent arrears‘.

Complaints left unresolved over time (as in the case outlined in the 1st story ie dumping of rubbish) forces the matter to be expressed publicly resulting in unfair negative publicity to all KO tenancies and tenants.

1, KO have advised due to 'complex behaviour issues' there has been a delay in resolving the matter. Firstly, we don’t know how accurate that vague response is or whether it has been reported to 'higher ups' correctly. Secondly, of all the resources that KO have, there is no reason for it not to have been resolved earlier-it is merely about stopping the dumping of rubbish onto a privately owned property.

2, KO have described it as a 'complex matter' and “won’t hesitate to take further action”.
They have described a simple order to stop dumping rubbish as 'complex'.

KO have stated they will not hesitate to take further action, yet, they did hesitate.
Considering the complainant first lodged a complaint in September (it is now December so 3 months have passed). Thirdly, another complainant with same problem has lodged several complaints and even filed a police complaint. Yet, despite the number of complaints lodged by 2 residents, now 3 months down the track, still nothing has been done. If a TM arrived to discuss the complaint -surely, this would have been enough? Where was the follow up by this TM? What are they getting paid for- is this the over spending/underperforming the government refers to within KO?

Why is it important that KO tenants & properties do not have any negative stigma?

Because it is essential they be 'accepted' into as many mainstream residential areas as possible ie integrated amongst privately/non govt owned housing areas in order to remove the line responsible for social and financial disparity in the years to come as well as increase areas for social housing developments that are not met with concern, bias or contempt.

As long as there is a 'line' maintained by negative publicity so too will the poverty line remain which in turn perpetuates the negative publicity.

24. The effects of ‘Causal dismissiveness’:
Although these issues/incidents have long since passed, and the poor tenancy placement issue has, for now, been resolved only as recently as this year with the removal of a long term unruly gang associated, dope smoking tenant, that is not to say that, we are free of any hypersensitivity or longterm effects as a result of KO's ongoing inaction or dismissiveness when we were subjected to years of ie dope smoking, targeted behaviour ie racism, unruly visitors, assaults etc.

The hypersensitivity to certain situations has involved uneasiness, irritability, frustration, mood swings, anger, wary and distrustful of govt agencies, especially KO.

Therefore, KO cannot assume that such hypersensitivity that was acquired due to long term exposure to certain situations caused by enduring careless decisions ie poor tenancy placements etc and lack of action by KO over the last 20+ years has ended just because those situational factors have now been removed.

Those situations were designed/resulted in ethnic minorities being instilled with a sense of fear, wariness of mainstream ethnicities/cultures.

I see this now where children of minorities are exposed to traumatic situations (condescension, humiliation, or being shouted at for no reason etc) intentionally caused by older mainstream ethnicities to instil a sense of fear (and trauma in them) who know the earlier they expose minorities to such 'shock' situations the 'deeper' and ingrained it becomes throughout life/as they get older.

a, What is the process regarding involving claims of drug use in the presence of toddlers - would there be contact made between the 2 agencies?

b, Who contacts who in such a situation - given that I notified KO prior to reporting it to the local police?

Also, there was a meeting with KO to discuss the incident- a representative from the Mana Electorate was present.

Refer news link
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/03/19/kaing...

25. Strengthening communities
KO are aware of the importance of strengthening communities and create ‘clusters’ of ethnic groups within their tenancies yet this seems to be limited to certain ethnic groups leaving the minorities further isolated. Refer '27 Ethnic minority'

My mother has lived in the tenancy for over 50 years and we have seen many tenants come and go from the neighbouring properties yet, not once, in that period, has KO ever placed an Indian tenant next door to us only predominantly Maori or Pacific Island (growing the existing enthnic ‘cluster’ further minoritising us) and usually with some level of dope smoking or gang association.

Instead, they increased(strengthened) the already large numbers of existing ethnic tenant groups around us, exacerbating the cultural indifference When you isolate a minority amongst the majority, bullying, targeted behaviour, racism travels only one way! And, when you have a TM of the same ethnicity, most of the minorities concerns are typically dismissed or not taken seriously in the favour of the main stream ethnic groups.

Also, any tenant complaint against one of them will not be supported by the other surrounding tenants ie ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ thereby maintaining an imbalance.

a, Is that to say, in the last 50 years, not one Indian family required a Kainga Ora home in Porirua or that their housing needs were not ever a priority over other applications?

b, Equally, how many Indian KO tenants live in Porirua now- dispersed in between the mainstream ethnic groups and, if so, how many?

c, Why have KO not ever thought to place Indian tenants next door to us (a small, isolated, Indian family of 2)- weren’t we in more need of strengthening our community than other existing tenants?

d, How many applications for KO housing(in Porirua) were made by those of Indian descent in the last 15 years?

26. Ethnic minorities
The common problems with placing ethnic minorities next to gang associated tenants are;
racial abuse, disruptive behaviour ie loud music, dope smoking, property encroachment and other passive or direct forms of intimidation. Police are partly to blame due to their lack of action on relatively ‘minor’ tenancy breaches ie dope smoking. Refer 19. Dope smoking reported to KO and police.

Regarding KO’s practice of keeping the minority families isolated within the larger ethnic groups of tenant communities;

The result is always the same when you place an ethnic minority family next door to a gang related tenancy ie loud music, intimidation (both passive and direct), and of course racial abuse.

When you keep the minorities ‘isolated’ you keep them vulnerable and subjected to submission via targeted racism, bullying and intimidation.

Ironically, once, when drafting this information request, I was approached by an ethnic minority family(not Indian), experiencing similar neighbour/tenant problems, and before they explained further details, I correctly guessed the problems they encountered living next door to an unruly gang associated tenant ie racial abuse, loud music, intimidation etc. They too were concerned at the ‘dismissiveness, from KO of their concerns -which related to safety, inappropriate behaviour in front of their younger family members.

In summary

The TM didn’t have our best interests in mind, and did not conduct herself in a professional and ethical manner when it came to dealing with an ethnic minority family- refer TM lodged false complaint)?

Regarding the 3 incidences she had ‘failed’ to prevent them, then failed to take action after them confirmed by the fact that the last incident occurred in retaliation (by the unruly tenant which involved racial abuse and physical assault) against us for reporting dope smoking to KO. She had plenty of precursive indicators regarding the source tenancy of the incidents but still failed to take preventive action or dismissed them due to the gang related element.

Not once did Kainga Ora talk to us about these incidents in detail and so dismissed my mother’s safety & the impact on her.

All these incidences could have been avoided had Kainga ora acted appropriately and stopped the incidents from escalating, instead, their inaction, sent a message to the neighbour to continue with such unruly behaviour and to retaliate against us.

The TM had used her power and influence to keep us quiet – to not continue pressing the matter - holding her accountable for her lack of action and dismissiveness and failure t prevent the 3 catalytic events from occurring ie firebombing, AOS callout and the dope smoking resulting racial abuse and physical assault.

To this day, the TM has not undergone any disciplinary action for her slackness that caused 3 potentially life threatening incidents nor been held accountable for them.

No offer of apology has been offered regarding her defamatory complaint against me.

I was curious why the TM would go to lengths to place our tenancy at risk by; making us appear as unruly 'tenants', lodging the false complaint and noting a misleading inaccurate threat level risk rating against our tenancy without our knowledge and reluctantly provide us a copy of the tenancy logs(where numerous redacted entries were noted).

However, on discovering last week that the government had ended KO's Sustaining Tenancies Framework in March last year(2024) I realised that the TM's escalated targeted actions towards us began the same year.

Refer to news link below.
The 'Sustaining Tenancies Framework' had effectively allowed tenants to stay in a Kāinga Ora home regardless of abusive or disruptive activity.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kainga-ora...

KO waited until after the firebombing, AOS callout, the dope smoking incident, racial abuse & physical assault before the unruly tenant had moved.

Was the firebombing not enough for KO to act on as all 3 incidences were a direct result of the irresponsible, unruly tenant?

Regarding the 3 incidences ie the AOS call out, firebombing, and the dope smoking (leading to racial abuse and physical assault) KO have refused to answer the following question.

Questions:
a, In all 3 instances of the AOS call out, firebombing, and the dope smoking (leading to racial abuse and physical assault) KO have refused to answer the following question.

What preventative action did the TM(Sene Rees Temara) take before and after these incidences?

b, Why did it take so long before KO took any action ie after all 3 incidences had already occurred?

Yours faithfully,

D Dahya