KO MS 26 21474 Dahya response.pdf

7 May 2026

D Dahya
[FYI request #34043 email]

Tēnā koe Mr Dahya

I write in response to your request to Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities dated 11 March 2026,
for the following information under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act):

‘1. What incident has prompted ko to be concerned over 'unhindered access'  for them to
undertake such costly action?
NOTE I recall that no such incidences warranting such actions in the last 30 years.
2. Has there been any complaints that warrant such action and did KO consult /discuss with
tenants in the immediate area beforehand?
If so, where did the complaints come from?
3. How did KO determine this as a priority over other high risk properties in Porirua?
4. The notice mentions due to H&S concerns- can KO explain what health issues and what
safety issues prompted such plans?
5. What resources would now be required to maintain such Health and Safety measures ie
time, manpower, and money etc?
6. How wil  compliance be enforced ie wil  it involve fines/infringement fees or some cost to
the tenant/infringer?
7. Would they spend as much  time ,money and resources as they should have done in
preventing the previous recent incidences of fire bombing, AOS raid and dope smoking
originating from properties in the same area?
8. Why hasn't ko addressed the dope smoking in the immediate area - ko are aware of dope
smoking incidences in the past that has resulted in verbal and racial attacks against a long
term tenant of ethnic minority status- my mother- KO took no action on tis matter before or
after.
9. In the name of Health and Safety wil  KO be undertaking ANY measures to DETECT
presence of dope smoking activities in the affected area ie amongst the surrounding tenants?
If not, then why not?
10. In the name of Health and Safety wil  ko be undertaking ANY measures to CURB dope
smoking in the immediate affected areas/tenants?
11. What measures have they implemented to address dope smoking activity in this area?
Note there has been more reason to do this(addressing dope smoking) based on past
incidences than there has been in painting yellow lines for apparent problem parking.
12. Does KO feel that addressing dope smoking activity would take priority over parking
'concerns' of which there has been no incidents to justify such actions?
13 Is KO creating a revenue generating opportunity?
If not, how does KO justify such a course of action  in the absence of any incident that would
warrant such concern and over and above addressing dope smoking activities?
14. Have they ever address any dope smoking activities in the area in the last 4 years in this
specific area?
15. In light of government addressing cost saving and wasteful spending would such
action/cost(of painting yel ow lines) be considered wisely made?
16. Does KO agree that dope smoking activities present more of a risk to h&s than

implementing unjustified non parking zones in a communal driveway- despite such action
would not generate /produce revenue earning opportunities as yellow lines would?
17. If KO are planning to implement non parking zones - can KO confirm they have
resolved/addressed ALL higher risk/higher priority concerns in the Porirua area?
Note  last year, at a meeting with KO, I provided photo evidence of higher priority concerns
regarding KO properties in the Porirua area needing more urgent attention (other than
focusing on our clutter issues) including one property on Warspite Ave where, for years, the
branches of a tree have pushed over a fence  on to the public footpath resulting in the fence
hindering  public thoroughfare and the heavy branch over hanging the foot path - no action
was ever taken by KO as result of my concerns raised over 7 months ago.
Refer points 16 & 24 'June KO meeting' and Section 13.'June KO meeting of FYI request'
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffyi.org.nz%2Frequest
%2F33401-kainga-ora-unruly-bad-behaving-tenancy-manager-redacted-entries-in-tenancy-
logs%23comment-
7444&data=05%7C02%7Cministerial.services%40kaingaora.govt.nz%7Ca093dc563e504da
199bb08de7f5bfae7%7C317e9866b1a04fc08dd8373f03f571bd%7C0%7C0%7C6390882305
21648494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuM
DAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C
&sdata=y1jFJMb5T1rcjySqt4Zucwua2NsFFhdEFqHSsSWhN2E%3D&reserved=0
However, a few weeks ago, during the first heavy storm in February the branch broke
prompting the entire tree to be cut down soon afterwards- unsure whether any injury resulted
but the danger/hazard it presented was not only very obvious for so long but was likely to
happen.
Also, during the same storm, in the KO property next door to us, a dead tree branch
overhanging the public foot path suffered the same fate breaking and falling onto the well
used footpath below (unsure if anyone was injured) but the day after I dragged the branch off
the footpath and surprisingly, the very next day workers were there clearing the debris very
quickly leaving no trace of such an incident behind. For over 30 years no tenant in that
property has ever maintained those trees bordering the front yard. We have never had this
problem as I have maintained the trees for over 30 years avoiding such an incident.
In another storm earlier in the year a branch of another large tree at the end of Champion
Street broke off in the wind causing a power outage I Porirua. KO and Porirua City Council
would be aware of this also.
18. So, how many other communal driveways in Porirua has KO actioned and/or has
officially planned currently?’

Kāinga Ora has considered your request under the Act. The responses follow the numbering in
your request.

Question 1
The driveway is a long, shared accessway servicing multiple properties. Parking has created an
obstruction risk, and clear access is required to ensure unhindered entry and exit for residents and
emergency services.

Question 2
Yes, Kāinga Ora has received complaints regarding parking at this location.
However, information that would identify the individuals who made those complaints is withheld
under section 9(2)(a) of the Act to protect the privacy of natural persons. We have considered the
public interest and determined it does not outweigh the need to protect privacy.
As the matter relates to health and safety, Kāinga Ora is not required to consult individual tenants
before implementing control measures.

Question 3
Health and safety risks are assessed and managed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
the specific characteristics and risks associated with each site.

Question 4
The health and safety concerns relate to:
•  potential obstruction of emergency service vehicles, and
•  the risk that residents may be unable to safely leave the property in an emergency if the
accessway is blocked.

Question 5
No ongoing resources are anticipated. Once the line-marking work is completed, Kāinga Ora does
not expect further time, staffing, or funding to be required.

Question 6
There are no fines or infringement fees associated with the yellow lines. Kāinga Ora expects
residents to comply voluntarily. If non-compliance were to persist, tenancy management processes
may be considered where appropriate.

Questions 7–12
These questions relate to alleged il egal activity, including drug use and criminal offending.
These matters are the responsibility of the New Zealand Police. Kāinga Ora does not hold
information relating to the investigation, detection, or enforcement of criminal activity.
Accordingly, these questions are refused under:
•  Section 18(g) – the information is not held by Kāinga Ora, and
•  Section 18(e) – the information does not exist insofar as Kāinga Ora does not undertake
the activities described.

Question 13
Kāinga Ora holds no information indicating that the installation of yellow no-stopping lines is
intended to generate revenue. This question is therefore refused under section 18(e).
Kāinga Ora considers the decision to implement the parking controls appropriate and proportionate
to address identified health and safety risks

Question 14
This question is refused under section 18(g), as Kāinga Ora does not hold information relating to
the enforcement or investigation of il egal activity.
Any tenant-specific information would also be withheld under section 9(2)(a) to protect privacy.

Question 15
Yes. Kāinga Ora considers the expenditure to be an appropriate and proportionate use of
resources to address a specific health and safety risk.

Question 16
This question seeks an opinion. Kāinga Ora is not required to create or provide opinions in
response to an information request. This question is therefore refused under section 9(2)(g)(i) of
the Act.

Question 17
Kāinga Ora does not operate on the basis of resolving all potential risks across an area before
addressing a specific issue. Parking concerns are identified and addressed individually where a
risk is identified.
To the extent this question seeks confirmation or evaluative assessment not held by Kāinga Ora, it
is refused under section 18(e) of the Act. Any opinion-based assessment is withheld under section
9(2)(g)(i).

Question 18
Kāinga Ora does not hold information indicating that similar measures have been implemented or
are currently planned for other communal driveways in Porirua. This question is refused under
section 18(e) of the Act.

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. There
is information about how to make a complaint at https:/ www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by
freephone on 0800 802 602.

Please note that Kāinga Ora proactively releases some responses to official information requests
where possible. Our response to your request may be published at https://kaingaor a.govt.nz/
publications/official-information-requests/, with your personal information removed.

Nāku iti noa, nā

Emma Atkins
Manager, Ministerial Services