Dear Canterbury Victim,

 

I refer to your request below.

 

Much of what you have requested does not refer to the Christchurch City
Council or Councillors or in fact requesting official information. The
Council is not obligated to form an opinion or create information to
respond to a request.

 

From searches staff are not aware of this document and do not have a
record of it being received by the Council. Therefore much of this request
is being refused under the following section of the LGOIMA - 17(g) – the
information requested is not held by the local authority.

 

It is important to note following the recent local body elections, a
number of Councillors present at the time the document was created are no
longer with the Council. The same is assumed for staff. To conduct a
forensic search would constitute substantial collation and research to
complete.

 

In response to Question 3:

 

Question 3 states:

3. The linked document includes official information where Southern
Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch
City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted
despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical
documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately
would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as
meeting the Building Code. When did the Councillor first become aware of
these or similar events? This question is not limited to the example given
in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this deceptive
behaviour. If there does not exist a document with this information then
an approximate date from the Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.
If the Councillor has no recollection of becoming aware of such events
before receiving this request for official information, then the date the
Councillor was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

This relates to the following extract in the linked document, which is
dated 24 August 2018:

 

Our current Consent Team Leaders were not in those positions at that time
or any time beforehand, so it is not possible request them to recall this
discussion.

 

Staff provide some commentary below in any case.

 

Firstly, an enquiry from a customer is not collusion.  This is no
different to any customer requesting information on what details need to
be provided as a part of a building consent application.

 

In this situation it is relatively easy to envisage what the enquiry from
Andrew Buckley was about. Section 17 of the Building Act requires
buildings to comply with the Building Code, but only to the extent
required by the Act. Section 112 then applies so that new building work
complies, but the rest of the building does not have to comply to any
greater extent than it did before the work commenced.

 

This means that there was no requirement under the Building Act to upgrade
the cladding from what it was beforehand.

The MBIE guidance was intended to provide advice to a wide range of people
and much of it was not enforceable by the Council.

 

There were many building consents where the work does not comply with the
MBIE guidance, but we have had reasonable grounds that it will comply with
the Building Code to the extent required by the Building Act. These have
not been documented in a way that can be extracted from any database as
each application is assessed on its own merits.

 

You have the right to request the Ombudsman to review this decision.
Complaints can be sent by email to [1][email address], by fax
to (04) 471 2254, or by post to The Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington
6143.

 

Kind regards,

 

Sean

 

 

Sean Rainey
Manager Official Information and Privacy Officer
Official Information Team

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Canterbury Victim <[FOI #21236 email]>
Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2022 3:08 AM
To: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Knowledge of potential criminal
activity by government employees

 

Dear Christchurch City Council,

 

I am making requests for official information.  These requests are being
made on the grounds of public interest in relation to the matters of
transparency; participation; accountability; administration of justice;
health, safety and the environment.

 

The references to “the Councillor” are each of the 16 Councillors for the
Christchurch City Council.  This single document should be considered to
be 16, one for each of the Councillors.  Please let me know if you would
like me to submit additional requests instead.

 

Please note that the requests are not just for documents, but also
information.  As such with regards to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance
document “The LGOIMA for local government agencies” these requests for
official information include “information held in the memory of” the
Councillor addressed and only the Councillor addressed, not the staff of
the office of the Councillor.  As such unless there is a document which
provides the information requested, the Councillor must be questioned to
provide the held information from their memory.  No sections of this
request can be denied based on Section 17(e) unless they are also denied
on Section 17(g).

 

Each of the points below is an individual request for official
information. If any of the responses need to be extended that should not
impact delivery of responses for those that do not require an extension. 
Any decision to extend a deadline should be accompanied with a Section 22
response.

 

Any information that is denied should be accompanied with a Section 22
response providing the reasons for the decision to deny the information. 
These should include the dates and times that the Councillor was
questioned about their memory of the official information.

 

As per the Office of the Ombudsman guidance a clarification requested will
only reset the deadline for the individual requests where a clarification
is provided, the remainder of the requests for official information in
this communication will have the original deadline remain.

 

Further in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman guidance “The agency’s
primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the
request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. The reference to 20 working
days is not the de facto goal but the absolute maximum (unless it is
extended appropriately).”  If the notification does happen on the last day
of the 20 working day deadline please provide a Section 22 response as to
why the decision was made that it was not ‘reasonably practicable’ to
provide the decision sooner.

 

I am not providing a Privacy Waiver, and so any response to these requests
for official information should have my personal information redacted.

 

These requests will make reference to official information held within the
document located at
[2]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
This request for official information is about official information held
by the Councillor addressed and therefore should not be transferred and
instead be denied if the information is not held by the addressed
Councillor.

 

1. When did the Councillor first become aware of the document that exists
at
[3]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If there does not exist a document with this information then an
approximate date from the Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If
the Councillor has no recollection of becoming aware of the document
before receiving this request for official information, then the date the
Councillor was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

2. The linked document includes official information where government
employees at Southern Response have been altering documents and
instructing others to alter documents they did not author in order to
create a false representation of facts and timelines where those documents
were then used to cause loss by deception.  When did the Councillor first
become aware of these or similar events? If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the Councillor has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Councillor was asked
to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

3. The linked document includes official information where Southern
Response employees conspired with a Consent Team Leader at Christchurch
City Council to get agreement that a building consent would be granted
despite the repair methodology did not match the submitted technical
documents, was in violation of the MBIE repair guidance, and ultimately
would result in a house repair that they knew had not been approved as
meeting the Building Code.  When did the Councillor first become aware of
these or similar events?  This question is not limited to the example
given in the linked document and can relate to any instance of this
deceptive behaviour.  If there does not exist a document with this
information then an approximate date from the Councillor’s memory will
fulfil the request.  If the Councillor has no recollection of becoming
aware of such events before receiving this request for official
information, then the date the Councillor was asked to recall their memory
will fulfil the request.

 

4. The linked document includes information regarding Southern Response
committing a significant breach of the Fair Insurance Code (the accepted
New Zealand Code of Ethics for the Insurance Industry) so significantly
that the behaviour of the involved government employees would bring the
entirety of the New Zealand Insurance Industry into disrepute.  When did
the Councillor first become aware that government employees were
responsible for the first ever unresolved significant breach of the Fair
Insurance Code being referred to the Insurance Council of New Zealand? If
there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate
date from the Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the
Councillor has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before
receiving this request for official information, then the date the
Councillor was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

5. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme (regulated by the Financial Service Providers
(Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008) specifically not
addressing matters of dishonesty in their assessment of behaviour of the
government staff despite finding that Southern Response significantly
breached the Fair Insurance Code.  When did the Councillor first become
aware that the Dispute Resolution Scheme declined to consider dishonesty,
when specifically asked to address matters of dishonesty in the details of
the complaint, when assessing violations of the insurance industry Code of
Ethics?  This question is not limited to the example given in the linked
document and can relate to any instance of this behaviour.  If there does
not exist a document with this information then an approximate date from
the Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the Councillor has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Councillor was asked
to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

6. The linked document includes official information regarding the
Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) communicating with the CEO of
Southern Response stating that the complaint of the behaviour of Southern
Response had been heard at their last meeting despite us being told that
it would not be heard at that meeting; and that had ICNZ not forced us to
go through the Dispute Resolution Scheme that ICNZ would have found
Southern Response in violation of the Code at that meeting, but instead
ICNZ delayed the complaint of two cancer patients to allow Southern
Response to be better prepared should the DIspute Resolution Scheme refer
the complaint back to ICNZ.  Southern Response then went on to utilise the
law firm where a former partner, and consultant of that law firm is a
sitting member of the ICNZ committee that assessed Southern Response’s
behaviour. When did the Councillor first become aware of these events?  If
there does not exist a document with this information then an approximate
date from the Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the
Councillor has no recollection of becoming aware of such events before
receiving this request for official information, then the date the
Councillor was asked to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

7. The linked document includes information regarding the Dispute
Resolution Scheme finding that the Significant Breach of the Fair
Insurance Code was unresolved despite the apology and ex gratia payment,
but the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) stating that the complaint
was resolved by the apology and ex gratia payment.  This is despite direct
communication between Southern Response and ICNZ where Anthony Honeybone
states that the apology was not sincere and instead was simply easier than
telling me how I was wrong about Southern Response’s behaviour.  The
linked document also addresses all parts of the Southern Response apology
with official information to show that it was not sincere. When did the
Councillor first become aware of these events?  If there does not exist a
document with this information then an approximate date from the
Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the Councillor has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Councillor was asked
to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

8. The linked document includes information regarding government employees
setting a one week deadline for me after I told them I was in hospital and
needed to reduce stress.  The deadline required me to provide engineering
information because they would not accept their own engineering advice
that their desired repair methodology was inappropriate.  These actions
have been described by the New Zealand Police as “seems inappropriate and
appears to be taking advantage of your medical circumstances”. When did
the Councillor first become aware of these events?  If there does not
exist a document with this information then an approximate date from the
Councillor’s memory will fulfil the request.  If the Councillor has no
recollection of becoming aware of such events before receiving this
request for official information, then the date the Councillor was asked
to recall their memory will fulfil the request.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

“Canterbury Victim”

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[4][FOI #21236 email]

 

Is [5][Christchurch City Council request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Christchurch City Council? If so, please contact
us using this form:

[6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete the email.

[8]Christchurch City Council logo

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. mailto:[FOI #21236 email]
5. mailto:[Christchurch City Council request email]
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. Christchurch City Council logo
https://ccc.govt.nz/

hide quoted sections