Archive for February 2014

Auckland council naive about Identity and the law

identity crisisI have it  in black and white   Auckland council have no policy   with regards to  trading with  undefined or unidentifiable  entities.

My  long over due LGOIMA was addressed  last night the actual response is here EY report response

I have referred to the actual report  previously in the post The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on

The reason I asked about who the report was written by was because the report  did not  disclose who EY was  and  as I pointed out the report on its last page provides the definition for EY as being

EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member
firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit
© 2013 Ernst & Young, New Zealand.
All Rights Reserved.

If you visit the companies register  you will note that there are several  EY companies

ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10

Go to the intellectual property office  and  you will find that the trade mark EY is registered to EYGN Limited which is not even   registered in New Zealand  but is  apparently registered in Nassau in the Bahamas.  The general disclaimer  with regards to that company can be  found  here

The person at Auckland Council who dealt with the request could well have assumed who the    company was which prepared the  and assumed wrong we will follow up   requesting evidence .

As a private Investigator myself  I find it  most disturbing that  a report has been issued  which has no  evidential value at all   for the  quoted price of $198,751.  I have to wonder if that is  before or after GST .

The law issue

I requested the legal basis on which this report was commissioned

 the response states

The report was commissioned in accordance with s12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b) of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). Additionally, the Chief Executive has broad power
under s42 of the LGA to ensure the effective and efficient management of the
activities of the local authority.

This response totally  circumvents the  requirements of the code of conduct elected members  set out in part 8  and has requirement for an independent panel .

The sections which have been quotes in the response are nothing more than a brush off

12Status and powers

(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—

  • (a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and

  • (b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.

and section 42 sets out the general duties of the  Chief executive

But  when a specific  duty is placed on the  CEO  that takes  prescient over any general  responsibility  in this  case the obligations were to  the  provisions of the code  of conduct and an independent panel   should have been   appointed not an organsiation which had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Mayor  .

Item 2  time sheets

In an open transparent and democratic  society  one would expect a bill for $198,751  to be explained . Private investigators work at $150 per hour  this represents  over 33 weeks   of work  , how many people  worked on it   and  WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE .

The report is such that it has no accountability    paying 200,000  for  which amounts to unsubstantiated opinion  is reckless.

Item 3 Engagement agreement dated 26 October 2013
I have to question  the terms of   any  agreement between EY and Council. the previous CEO  Doug Mc Kay was a member of the committee for Auckland and met with   the members of this elite  group  behind closed doors without any requirement to report back to council  see Download View as HTML

Membership to the committee for Auckland  was justified as  follows

Membership to this committee is an operational issue and was approved by the Chief
Executive, or his staff, within delegated financial authority. As such, no Governing Body
approval is required, nor is the Chief Executive required to report back to the Governing

Once we drew the attention  of the CEOs  placement on this  committee to the attention of he world  Stephen towns name was removed  from the membership of  the committee for Auckland .

Doug Mc Kay  who  was concurrently  with being CEO of Auckland council  a director of another committee  for Auckland member BNZ .

It appears to me that a CEO  who does not appear to know what  conflict of interest is , spent more time  instructing his fellow members of the committee for Auckland than properly consulting  with the executive body of council who employed him.

We  await with baited breath to see  the path the new CEO  follows,  his removal  from the membership of the committee for Auckland is a step in the right  direction

Nothing trivial

Yesterday I was  able to address the audit  and risk committee (  although not uninterrupted)

 I produced a  power point the PDF of which is attached Nothing trivial

I had particularly wanted to point out  the similarity between the Logo of AWINZ fundraising logo

With that  of the  signage on the council facility and vehicles

animal welfare waitakere and that this was deceptively similar given that one is a council  logo and the other a private logo used to raise funds from the public

 I had also wanted to point out that Mr Wells had  an intention of taking over the   entire complex  and had expressed this to the  then minister  ( AWS animal welfare services )

 You will not  find any discussion papers on council   documents regarding this  and I believe that AWINZ is an example of  how   council business units are being groomed for  take over , using council funds to  set them up and then  go into private hands.

 There is nothing to  stop this  as  Councillors appear to  be ignorant of corruption  and   I totally expect  that you will do nothing about my presentation yesterday except file it.  You will no doubt have moved a motion that  my documents are not appended to the  minutes  and that is why I will publish them myself on   my Transparency web site along with this email. Nothing trivial

 Please also refer to  my  post on Anticorruption    Does Auckland council condone Identity fraud?

 While residents are asked to mow  berms  and have traffic tickets enforced on  them for genuine mistakes and  have   historic debts enforced at great cost to the  rate payers you appear to do nothing  with regards to   proven corruption within council.

 Mr Singh  who  appears to be a little out of his depth on this issue in referring me to  a Wendy Brandon  email with regards to   email  censoring , could do well to meet with me  , that way he might understand that   there were five different  entities who called themselves AWINZ  only one of them was a legal person in its own right.  There were also 3 AWINZ trusts  , so  he has to be particularly careful by saying that there is   an injunction   when I was not  talking about the three people who took me to court  but was in fact talking about a  deceptively similarly named law enforcement authority which was operated  only by Mr Wells your council manager from council premises. Any two year old can see the conflict of interest  why are you blind to it ?  I have to ask if it is  willful blindness or plain ignorance ?

 Please advise  by way of LGOIMA   what resolutions you passed with regards to my   submission and what plans you have for investigation

Documents pertaining to this  matter are available on the post  Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?


Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?

wells flow chart_Page_2In 2005  Neil Wells became the manager of Dog and stock control Waitakere . He set about re branding  the council premises   and produced new signage and logos.

Neil Wells   at the time  was running a law enforcement authority called  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  from council premises  using the staff and infrastructure to   enforce the  animal  welfare law.. legislation which he had assisted in writing and  advised on.

Just prior to the act passing into law Mr Wells made an application to the  then minister of  agriculture and bio-security for  the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) to become a law enforcement authority under  the legislation which he had  played a pivotal  role in.

The  not at all minor issue  which Mr Wells overlooked in the application was that  AWINZ had not formed in any manner or means  and because it did not exist as a trust as he claimed  and therefore could not become  a  legal person as Maf had required it   and expected it to be.

So in other words Mr Wells pulled the  wool over the ministers eyes,  and  any other   lesser mortal would  have been charged with the  very serious offence of using a document for pecuniary advantage or  false statement by promoter ( 10 years ) .

Mr Wells worked with his associate  Tom Didovich the then manager of Waitakere city dog and stock control.  Didovich  gave consents to the minister  for  Neil wells to   use his fictional  trust in  the then Waitakere   city and  in North shore city , in so doing  cutting out the   the  very inconvenient requirement to get   consent of the Councillors.

Mr Didovich and Mr wells signed a Memorandum of understanding  ( MOU )together  and when  trust deed  were required Mr Didovich obliged  by  witnessing the  alleged trustees signatures .

Now  many of you will be jumping up and down  and screaming conflict of interest by now  but for our Councillors it  doesn’t appear to matter , they are quite  happy to consent to rate rises to cover this sort of thing.

Lesser mortals would also have picked  that a trust formed  1.3.2000  could not make an application to the minister on 22.11.1999  but that is another story.

Any way   Tom Didovich  had to leave council   because affairs of the heart ( or so I believe ) is something the council  sees as a conflict  of interest  so Mr Wells  has to apply   for the position to keep the    set up of AWINZ  going.

With Wells ( a barrister )  at the helm  the  council premises are re branded.. could  it be  to  to fulfill the intention he stated in the application  to the minister  under point 7  where he states that  in the short term Animal welfare services (AWS ) will continue to be a business unit  of Waitakere  city council … it will be a linked organisation to AWINZ  and  its inspectors will interface with AWINZ .. in the medium term   the  business unit of AWS will be vested in AWINZ . All the assets  of the AWS ( the animal refuge , plant and equipment ) will be transferred  or leased to AWINZ….

So with this  PPP  idea in mind Mr Wells set about  changing the signage of the council premises so that they were confusingly similar to that of AWINZ .( council are  refusing to look at this   they ignore it )donation-request

In 2006  Neil Wells   through Wyn Hoadley (who  posed as the chair person of the fictitious trust  AWINZ )solicited donations for the Waitakere animal welfare fund there was also a collection box on the counter waitakere animal welfare fund collection box


The issue is that AWINZ at this  point in time did not exist in any legal manner or form and only Mr Wells administered the bank accounts.  .

I complained to council with regards to the logo   being so close to that  of the council buildings  and the following year the same donation letter was produced with an amended logo  and  minus the  council  logo .

In December 2006 , that  is after the first donation drive and before the second  , Hoadley, Coutts  Wells and Didovich ( yes the same one as before )  formed a trust which  became a charity .

This charity is registered as

The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand CC11235 Registered 28/09/2007

Each year the charity is required to file an annual report  and in  2009 the  Waitakere  account was identified as the no 2  account

This year the  annual return  shows the  no 2 account being  closed and   fed into the  general   accounts .

I  know a lot more about this money  and  have  previous correspondence from council which acknowledges that Council is aware that a third party is dealing with council funds.  So on seeing   council funds being apparently misappropriated I  do a Lgoima request

Today I receive a letter from council lawyer  Jazz Singh   which refuses the information I have asked for Auckland council Waitakere welfare response


Jazz refers to an email  from Wendy Brandon.   dated 13 February 2013    and it simply makes no sense that  this email from Wendy has any relevance to this request .Brandon email 13 feb 2013

Jazz also  quotes refusal   by virtue of  section 17 ( h)  LGOIMA   section 17 LGOIMA,

Now my question is    why is it important to  take residents and rate payers to court  for   historic unpaid  metro water  accounts  using false documentation   and  why  is it   frivolous or vexatious or  trivial  to raise  the issue of corruption , use of council premises for private pecuniary gain and misappropriation of  charitable funds which were being held   for council?

With regards to  the metro water claims.  Water care is  taking a number of persons to court on Tuesday the 18th  to enforce   7 year old debts to Metro water, these  debts are not to   water care  and   water care through its solicitors  have sworn false affidavits ..

I have the evidence .. but  Council    just plods on   and  makes us accountable for things we are not accountable  for  and  they ignore  the criminal of fences which are going on around them.

Jazz we would  love to have a response from you

No doubt the Councillors  they will as usual ignore this .