What dam­ages?

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -

Ed­i­tor,

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.

(Let­ter abridged)

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.