[Darryl Telfer]

WARNING Long story follows but I do get to the question (eventually)

Prior to the OLG Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines being developed I understand there was a report by Justice NSW or a community legal organisation (or similar) around Council’s debt recovery actions. This report identified and criticised that Councils were responsible for a very large portion of claims through NSW Local Courts etc (30 plus% from memory). This report or something else which “drove” development of the OLG guidelines dealt with a much broader range of issues but the Local Court case ratio was a “highlight”.

Can anyone point me to this report or other background to the development to the OLG Debt Management and Hardship Guidelines?

Specifically, I am trying to find something with authority that deals with Council’s making payment arrangements that are insufficient to service recurring annual rates. We have a proposal before us along these lines (through a ratepayer’s legal representative) which claims (with evidence) that the ratepayer (on jobseeker) for Council to require more than what is offered “is frankly unsustainable and will place (insert ratepayer name here) in a grave financial position. It is equally unethical for Council to demand payments from (insert ratepayer name here) over and above” the amount offered.

Of course, we can refuse to accept the offer (on basis rate debt would increase year on year etc and place ratepayer in an ever worsening financial position over time) but I would like to back it up with some authority. Our view is that it would be unethical to enter such arrangement (that does not at least cover recurring annual rates).

If you’ve managed to read this, thanks!