We received a letter dated 14/2/12 from our [Housing New Zealand] tenancy manager outlining a ‘‘damages’’ bill for $98.
On the 25/2 we received another letter (dated 22/2) advising that HNZ has not received a response to the first letter and it noted a new owing amount that included the rent recently charged for that week.
This letter was dated 22/2 , a Wednesday, a day before the rent is normally paid, which HNZ are more than aware of.
Again the letter reiterates that we have not responded to the initial letter (I did via email on 20/2).
It also stated because they had not received the entire payment, the conditions of the tenancy agreement had not been met, referencing the Residential Tenancies Act.
We have had similar situations occur previously where we had, in fact, responded to such hastily sent letters but they were not acknowledged by the tenancy manager who then escalated the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal.
Even after those previous issues were eventually resolved there would not be any letter of explanation placed in our file to indicate that to the next tenancy manager at a tribunal hearing.
One of the grounds for ‘‘further action’’, i.e.,tenancy Tribunal, is non communication with Housing NZ which the tribunal will look at.
They will also pay attention to a history of ‘‘non payment of rent’’ type letters which would lead them to make a ruling in favour of Housing NZ, i.e., termination.
When it comes to collecting owed money the tenancy manager is on to it, yet, it took over a month for her to organise a replacement of a faulty security light.
Tenancy managers need to start focusing on family, health, safety and security, not just payments owed.
Rather than be proactive in collection of debts/arrears, be proactive in tenancy issues.
And after all this, we still don’t know what the damages are and when it was repaired.
We need tenancy managers, not debt collectors hiding behind an 0800 number. DAVID DAHYA, Porirua.
Kiwirail’s attitude probably stems from having complete confidence in the provisions of the Railways Act.
It would never have occurred to them that the act could be inadequately drafted in the first place.
If it had been, we would not have some train drivers rampaging uncontrolled throughout the rail network, using their horns when they please without any good reason, other than a nonsense manual. [Meanwhile] Thank-you for printing my revised letter of February 13 in your February 28 edition but I am not impressed by the standard of abridgement.
Example 1: My heading of ‘Tooting Trains’ was adequate and did not need a horrific alternative.
2. The omission of my 21/12/11 survey deprived readers of the opportunity to appreciate the extent of the tooting is 68 per cent.
3. When I wrote ‘Operating Manual’ it was a title of a book which deserved capitals.
4. I used the word ‘‘effect’’ correctly in its sense of ‘‘bring about’’. Your ‘‘affect’’ is meaningless in this context.
5. I think the law courts deserve a capital C to distinguish them from tennis and other courts. Please add after Courts, or the Attorney-general.
6. Last sentence should read ‘‘attitude to those who live near rail crossings’’. I would appreciate a ‘‘correctly abridged letter’’ as some people may get the impression my understanding of English is deficient and I may use the corrected version in the forthcoming legal battles.
The other changes were acceptable as being insignificant.
P.S. Your contact details seem to have vanished completely from the February 28 edition. Is this legal?
C NIVEN, Linden. (Two letters abridged) 1. The headings are written by subeditors, we rarely use those supplied. 2. The survey percentage was omitted as the reference was ambiguous. Were 68 per cent of trains tooting or was 68 per cent of the train tooting considered excessive? 3. Our style is lower case in these instances. 4. You got me there. 5. We only capitalise the names of specific court houses. 6. Apologies, the ‘to’ was omitted by accident when transcribing the handwritten letter. Our contact details were accidently omitted due to a one-off change in the front page layout – Editor. wakeboard proposal, I suggest to him that he keep his inaccurate, uninformed views of my personal integrity to himself.
Perhaps it would have been useful in the article for Mr Marlow to have specified precisely the manner in which the poll being conducted on Youropinion. co.nz is untruthful and misleading. He may not like his plans being challenged but he should be careful how he speaks publicly of others or he may find one boatload of money is not all he’ll spend on an unsuccessful venture.
For those who are interested beyond the discussion via media perhaps they should enquire why it was the then chief executive and council considered that disclosure of the ‘Aotea Lagoon Cableway – Financial Implications’ paper considered in council’s meeting of August 2010 should be in public excluded session. What was so sensitive that it had to be hidden? Should we not be discomforted by the fact that item 133 of the Proposed Aotea Lagoon Cableway Lease briefing paper states that council has no investment in the proposal – but how much in time and cash has been spent in getting the proposal to this stage – and isn’t that an investment?
Will $53,595 per annum reimburse even the cost so far incurred?
BRIAN COLLINS, Papakowhai. Mr Marlow says his comments on the survey were not intended as a criticism of Mr Collins’ integrity – Editor.