|
|
Post by sparrow on Jun 20, 2007 15:24:04 GMT 12
Family under threat of eviction uncooperative - HNZ
By SOPHIE HAZELHURST | Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Tenants under threat of eviction from their Auckland state house had failed to co-operate with a number of agencies trying to work to keep them in their home, Housing Minister Chris Carter said today.
Speaking at a parliamentary select committee, Mr Carter said Housing New Zealand had worked with social services and the police to ensure the correct process had been followed in the eviction of a family from their Range View Rd house in Owairaka.
Sharon Salt and her family were ordered to leave 39 Range View Rd on June 8 after a Tenancy Tribunal hearing found serious breaches of their agreement with Housing NZ.
Housing NZ was granted the right to evict the family after they failed to turn up to two hearings.
The order of the Tenancy Tribunal was granted due to the "serious interference with the peace, privacy and comfort of the neighbourhood".
The order spoke of the "ongoing fear and trepidation "including fear of recriminations being experienced by neighbours (as confirmed to the tribunal by the New Zealand Police)".
After an appeal, Mrs Salt was granted a rehearing which will take place on Friday.
In response to a question from Green MP Sue Bradford, asking if a multiple-agency approach would save the family from eviction, Mr Carter said this had already been attempted.
"There have been a lot of interventions in this case and attempts to use other agencies," Mr Carter said.
People were going to "extraordinary lengths" to resolve the situation, he said.
The level of co-operation from the family had "not been high," he said, but there had been high levels of "sophisticated interventions" from the agencies.
"At the end of the day, tenants have responsibilities too."
Housing NZ had to act as a responsible landlord, and this involved a duty of care to neighbours.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jun 20, 2007 15:26:16 GMT 12
My political leanings are centerist, rather than a straight left/right. I would probably be left-leaning on social policy and a bit more right-leaning in terms of economic/fiscal policy. Under normal circumstances, I would probably have sympathy for the tenants, but in this situation: I agree with Housing NZ. Tenants do have responsibilities.
What are your views on this case?
|
|
|
|
Post by dalbyj on Jun 20, 2007 16:11:24 GMT 12
Completely agree with you here Sparrow.
We used to live in a state house - one of the nicer ones, we were very very lucky. However we were not so lucky with our neighbours, who lived in a State house behind us - they would have boozy druggy parties constantly, used our property as a shortcut whenever they felt like it, and let their dog run loose throughout the neighbourhood. In fact my son has a phobia of dogs now because this dog leapt up to my boy when he was in his pushchair, scaring the living daylights out of him.
We constantly had their tenancy manager on our doorstep asking if they even still lived there, as every time they visited, a different person would answer the door and say that the tenant was away ... something tells me they were subletting lol.
Unfortunately I have no idea if they were evicted as we got sick of them and moved out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalbyj on Jun 20, 2007 16:15:00 GMT 12
Anyway, what I'm trying to say (in a very roundabout way lol) is that just as the customer is NOT always right, so the tenant is not either. When you become a tenant you sign an agreement, if you don't live up to it you should be kicked out. I actually think HNZ is too soft on many of its tenants and should enforce the rules a lot more than it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jun 20, 2007 17:41:57 GMT 12
It would be of interest to know what the time line was of when incidents begun concerning this families behavior as
the skill level with the Tenancy Managers must be zero and with the Police involvement and many agencies one would have expected something concrete to have kicked in.
equally the lack of concern for a long period by Housing New Zealand for the surrounding neighbors must be intolerable for them. I think i have seen some Housing New Zeland tenants on Neighbours from Hell. This lot seems to be pure hell.
I understand if this were the private sector a landlord can give 90 days notice for a tenant to leave no reason needs to be specified but the Housing New Zealand Board have a policy of not giving notice which needs to be reviewed.
Housing new Zealand tenants are receiving a state benefits ie secure housing, subsidized rent of 25% of income that graduates up to the market rate Some pay only $33.00 per week for a beautiful home. The market rate is not the true private sector market rate, it is cheaper.
One would expect a code of conduct or hey live in the private sector.
I believe that because of the difficulty of getting into a state house now and the criteria where some applicants have not only housing problems but are what is commonly known as F....ed in the head, ghettos are now being created. The destructible ripple affect is turning good state tenants that are responsible with irresponsible tenant neighbors into environments of fear harassment and viciousness.
Housing New Zealand staff should take their job seriously they are paid very well and do their job.
The current tenant in dispute should be kicked to the curb!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jun 20, 2007 18:34:14 GMT 12
Anyway, what I'm trying to say (in a very roundabout way lol) is that just as the customer is NOT always right, so the tenant is not either. When you become a tenant you sign an agreement, if you don't live up to it you should be kicked out. I actually think HNZ is too soft on many of its tenants and should enforce the rules a lot more than it does. I agree. As HNZ is a large landlord, they need to take into consideration the affect their tenants will have on their other tenants as a whole. We seem to have developed a society where everyone knows their rights, but very few think of their own responsibilities. I have no problem with State housing and giving a hand up to people that need it. I'm sure most tenants will be fine. The other ones that aren't need to be removed. A state house is an opportunity and people should appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jun 20, 2007 18:41:02 GMT 12
Interesting bingbong. I didn't know that re: HNZ and a policy of (or lack thereof!) notice. I agree with you. It does need to be reviewed and yeeeeeah - kick these neighbours to the curb! We hear of people on the waiting lists for houses. If these people have proved themselves bad tenants: give the opportunity to someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 20, 2007 18:59:28 GMT 12
Hmmm.. I'm always reluctant to make judgment on cases like this because of media hype or because inconsistent reports from the different agencies involved. Sometimes 'interventions' mean that each agency has passed it on to another agency because they lack the ability or the effort it takes to get through the matter.
I make a few referrals myself to different agencies and I am sometimes highly frustrated by the lack of response and lack of effort made by those agencies to action a referral.
Also I will never forget that 'James Whakaruru' had contact with 25 different agencies and look what happened to him.
On the other hand I fully agree that each of us must take personal responsibility in our lives, but if we should have circumstances which lead us to approach an agency which promotes itself as a 'support' then responsibility also lies with them to do the best they can to achieve an excellent outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jun 20, 2007 21:50:39 GMT 12
re [Hmmm.. I'm always reluctant to make judgment on cases like this because of media hype or because inconsistent reports from the different agencies involved.]
and
[Also I will never forget that 'James Whakaruru' had contact with 25 different agencies and look what happened to him.]
I agree Lux with your thoughts and the failing of organisation(s) [including state and private sector] that take on the mantle of assistance who fail and fail those who either have limited skills, place there trust with is shocking.
I can see how people are lined up to fail and then when the scrutiny is on them it appears they are a hopeless case due to the involvement of those agencies and the behavior hasn't modified when they weren't authentic assisted supported.
I believe it is a breach of a duty of care.
Some organisnations have what i call a ping pong ball approach where if they can get as many hits of the same people it looks statistically they are working with many for funding purposes.
However authentic groups aren't interested in a fraud but do the work.
Hopefully the people at focus in the Housing New Zealand situation at hand will get the big wake up slap and if they don't know how to get a life go and find one and develop it.
The time line of this complete situation as HNZ  cant just wipe its hand along with the other authorities need microscopic scrutiny.
|
|
cant just wipe its hand along with the other authorities need microscopic scrutiny.