This is what happens when Govt agencies get personal.

On 16 Jul 2026, at 9:51 AM, Customer Relations <[email protected]> wrote:

Kia ora Tracy

 

Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with us to let us know of the concerns raised.

Please accept this email as confirmation that we have received your complaint and are actively reviewing it. There has been a lot of information requested which will require a couple different business units to be involved.

 

At this stage, I do not have a date of outcome given the nature of the request but I do hope that I can provide this to you sooner rather than later.

 

If I need any further information, I will be in touch, but for now, I will begin investigating the complaint and provide a response at the earliest convenience.

 

Have a great rest of your day.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Morgan Greene

 

Customer Relations Advisor

Te Mahau – Customer Services

NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi

Palmerston North Office 

Private Bag 11777, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand

 

______ _____________________________________

 

 

 

From: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 8:11 PM

To: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Subject: Formal complaint regarding NZTA warning letter dated 3 February 2026 – Transport Service Licence allegations and communications to third parties

---

You don’t often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

FORMAL COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW, AND PRE-ACTION REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

8 July 2026

Brett Gliddon
Chief Executive
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi
Private Bag 6995
Wellington 6141

By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Formal complaint regarding NZTA warning letter dated 3 February 2026 – Transport Service Licence allegations and communications to third parties

Dear Mr Gliddon,

I write to lodge a formal complaint concerning the conduct of NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi in relation to compliance action involving Katrina Brooky and related transport service licensing matters. This complaint particularly concerns the letter dated 3 February 2026, signed by Kelly Copplestone, Senior Compliance Officer, entitled “Formal Warning – Used an Unlicensed Transport Service”.

This correspondence contains serious statements presented as fact. Those statements appear to have been communicated to a third party and are capable of affecting commercial reputation, contractual relationships, and future business operations. The factual and legal basis for those statements is disputed unless and until NZTA provides the evidence relied upon.

This document is also intended to operate as a pre-action request for disclosure. It gives NZTA the opportunity to explain its decision-making process, identify the statutory authority relied upon, provide the evidence supporting its position, and correct any inaccurate or incomplete statements before further steps are considered.

1. Independent review requested

Given the seriousness of the matters raised, I request that this complaint be reviewed by a senior officer who has had no prior involvement in the original licensing decision, compliance action, warning letter, communications with Police, or communications with third parties.

2. Matters requiring review

The matters requiring review include:

• the removal, cancellation, suspension, revocation, or non-recognition of the original Transport Service Licence (TSL);

• the basis upon which NZTA concluded that transport operations were being conducted without an appropriate TSL;

• the subsequent existence of another TSL and/or another company through which lawful transport operations were being conducted;

• the apparent failure to recognise or properly consider the second TSL when Police and NZTA-related compliance action occurred;

• the factual basis for any statements made by NZTA to third parties concerning Katrina Brooky, her company, her truck, or her transport operations;

• the decision to send a warning letter to Craig & Jay Limited / Craig Edwards stating or implying that Katrina Brooky or a related operator was unlicensed;

• the role, authority, and conduct of Kelly Copplestone in issuing the warning letter and any associated email communications;

• whether NZTA independently verified Police information before communicating adverse allegations to a third party; and

• whether the warning letter was standard practice or an exceptional step taken in this case.

3. Proof of claim required

Please provide proof of claim for each material statement made by NZTA, including but not limited to proof supporting any assertion that:

• Katrina Brooky, any associated operator, or any relevant vehicle was operating without an appropriate TSL at the relevant time;

• Craig & Jay Limited knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that it was using an unlicensed transport service;

• the relevant truck was not covered by a valid TSL when Police attempted enforcement action;

• the original TSL was properly removed, cancelled, suspended, revoked, or otherwise treated as invalid;

• the second TSL was not valid, not applicable, not recognised, or otherwise insufficient;

• the warning letter was factually accurate when sent; and

• any email or communication by Kelly Copplestone containing adverse statements was accurate, authorised, and supported by NZTA records.

For each statement, please identify the document, record, licence entry, decision record, statutory provision, delegation, witness statement, Police report, or other evidential material relied upon.

4. Original TSL decision

Please provide full disclosure concerning the original TSL, including:

• the full licensing history;

• the date and basis upon which the TSL was removed, cancelled, suspended, revoked, or treated as invalid;

• the statutory authority relied upon;

• the decision-maker and any delegated authority;

• all notices sent before the decision;

• all documents relied upon;

• all internal notes, emails, memoranda, and recommendations;

• whether Katrina Brooky was given notice and an opportunity to respond before the decision; and

• whether any reconsideration, review, or appeal right was available or explained.

5. Subsequent TSL and second company

It is understood that, following issues concerning the original TSL, Katrina Brooky obtained another contract and arranged another TSL and/or another company structure to permit transport operations to continue lawfully. Please provide full disclosure concerning NZTA’s knowledge and treatment of that subsequent TSL and/or company, including:

• when NZTA first became aware of the subsequent TSL and/or company;

• whether NZTA checked the subsequent TSL before issuing the warning letter;

• whether NZTA checked the subsequent TSL before any information was provided to Police;

• whether NZTA accepted or rejected the subsequent TSL, and why;

• whether the truck was recorded as operating under or in connection with that TSL;

• whether the man or operator holding the relevant TSL was present when Police action occurred;

• why the existence of that TSL was apparently ignored or not reflected in NZTA communications; and

• what review has now been undertaken to ensure NZTA and Police were operating on complete and accurate information.

6. Police communications and independent verification

Please provide all communications between NZTA and New Zealand Police concerning Katrina Brooky, her company, the truck, the original TSL, the subsequent TSL, the relevant vehicle stop, any attempted arrest, impoundment, or compliance action. Please confirm whether NZTA independently verified Police information before issuing the warning letter or communicating adverse statements to third parties.

7. Communications to third parties

The warning letter was sent to a third party and contained statements capable of adversely affecting Katrina Brooky’s commercial reputation and contractual relationships. Please identify:

• the statutory authority relied upon to communicate those statements to a third party;

• the policy or operational guideline governing such communications;

• whether any legal review occurred before the letter was sent;

• whether consideration was given to the commercial consequences if the information was inaccurate or incomplete;

• whether Craig & Jay Limited / Craig Edwards was asked for information before the warning was issued;

• whether Katrina Brooky was given an opportunity to respond before adverse statements were sent to a third party; and

• whether NZTA will withdraw, correct, or qualify the warning if the evidence does not support it.

8. Frequency and standard practice

Please confirm whether NZTA commonly writes to customers, contractors, or other third parties warning them about alleged licensing issues involving transport operators. Please provide, for the previous five years, the following anonymised information:

• the number of warning letters substantially similar to the 3 February 2026 letter;

• the number sent to customers of transport operators rather than to the transport operator directly;

• the number involving alleged use of an unlicensed transport service;

• the number issued after Police enforcement, attempted arrest, vehicle stop, or impoundment;

• the number later withdrawn, amended, corrected, or disputed;

• the number resulting in formal charges or prosecution; and

• the policy, template, or decision criteria used when issuing such letters.

9. Kelly Copplestone – role and authority

This complaint does not ask NZTA to assume improper motive. It asks NZTA to identify the capacity in which Ms Copplestone acted and the authority relied upon. Please provide:

• Ms Copplestone’s role and delegated authority as Senior Compliance Officer;

• the delegation authorising her to issue the warning letter;

• whether the letter was reviewed or approved by a manager or legal adviser;

• whether the email communications complained of were sent in her professional capacity;

• whether any personal conflict, prior involvement, or perceived conflict was identified or assessed; and

• all policies governing staff communications containing adverse allegations about regulated parties.

10. Records to be preserved

Please immediately preserve all records, including emails, Teams messages, file notes, phone logs, licensing records, compliance records, audit records, Police communications, internal memoranda, draft letters, templates, approvals, legal advice records, and metadata concerning this matter. This preservation request includes records held by individual staff members as well as central NZTA systems.

11. Outcome sought

The outcomes sought are:

1. full disclosure of the evidence and decision records relied upon;

2. an independent internal review;

3. confirmation of the factual and statutory basis for the original TSL decision;

4. confirmation of the factual and statutory basis for ignoring or rejecting the subsequent TSL;

5. an explanation of why adverse statements were made to a third party;

6. withdrawal or correction of any statement that cannot be evidenced;

7. a written assurance that no further adverse communications will be made without verified evidence and procedural fairness;

8. confirmation of whether the matter has been referred to legal or senior regulatory management; and

9. a response suitable to be placed before a Court if required.

Please provide a substantive written response within 10 working days. If NZTA requires further time, please identify the reason and provide an interim response identifying the records preserved, the reviewer appointed, and the timeframe for full response.

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch

Katrina Brooky

 WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS