[John Towers]

Hi Megan,

I assume the claim is being made under Sec 556(1)(s).

I know that there have been various court cases regarding this scenario & as I understand it land owned by the LALC is liable for rates when used for residential or business purposes.

Under Sec 560(4) of LGA the crown is liable for rates subject to the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998. However, this case is a little different in that the land has been leased/managed by LALC from AHO. The starting point would be what lease/agreement has been issued for the properties in question. Simply having it under the control of the LALC does make it non rateable. Until information to the contrary is received I would be of the opinion that the AHO remains liable for the rates.

As you may be aware there was a court case late last year involving matters very similar to what has been described by yourself involving several councils & applications for non rateability in similar circumstances with another PBI. This case is well documented on the website & the link to the judgement can be found via http://revpronsw.dev.nucleoserver.com/forums/topic/community-housing-decision/ The Councils involved in this matter had all taken the view that the properties were rateable & this was upheld by the Court.

It may be that there will be a new court case in the future but I would be relying on this at the present time. Read some of the commentary that has been made on the website regarding PBI’s etc over the last 6-12 months.

I’m sure this doesn’t answer all your questions but it may provide some food for thought in the matter.

JT