[David Grima]

Heh Rob, not often that I agree with you; but I do in this instance 😉

[David Grima]

Thank you Simone & Carmel.

[David Grima]

Hi all,
We denied their application too.
They told us that other Councils were providing rebates but were unable to provide proof.
Dave

• This reply was modified 5 months, 4 weeks ago by David Grima.

[David Grima]

Our variance was corrected in a recent supp listing.

[David Grima]

Hi Maria,
I will await to be corrected but probably not via rates (i.e. a category with a lower rate).
Think the only way to assist would be via a subsidy or donation.
Dave

[David Grima]

Yeah, I thought I got the most recent version and also identified date errors – I just ignored them.

[David Grima]

Heh Trev, Winge is the same as Shoalhaven (and Bayside was the same too).

[David Grima]

thank you Andrew.

[David Grima]

Interesting concept Dallas.

I am old school and can’t comprehend billing someone to receive a bill, just the same as most Councils charge ratepayers to pay a notice (via the old credit card service fee).

[David Grima]

yeah that was the plan Anthony but in the end we got lucky and the new owner paid (not sure why) but thankful all the same.

[David Grima]

Hi Emma,
Nothing yet (fingers crossed).
Wondering what sort and how many discrepancies they have identified AND really how they would know there were any in the first place?
Dave

[David Grima]

Hi all,
A little update.
I emailed Revenue NSW and magically 4 hours later a file called Fix 4 appears with the original data reinstated in the Specified Use column (i.e. codes as per the guidelines – BTR, CHP etc).
No email confirming the error has been received to date.
Makes me wonder if I didn’t point out the error, what would have happened?
Sorry for being the sceptic amongst us BUT this wreaks of 2017 all over again.
Dave

[David Grima]

Hi all,
Interesting update.
So my file was apparently not in the correct format so it has been corrected TWICE.
The files in my opinion were in the correct format as per appendix A of the guidelines issued November 2024.
The changes made to my file were:
– in fix 1, the results in the Pensioner Flag column were changed to YES or NO results when the guidelines state should be Y or N; in fix 2, the results reverted to Y or N;
– in fix 1, the results in the Specified Use column have been changed to Y or N answers from the previous BTR, CHP etc results required by the guidelines; in fix 2, the results have remained as Y or N answers.
On closer inspection, Revenue NSW have managed to transpose results so that whatever result was in the Pensioner Flag column now also appears in the Specified Use column (meaning that if a property is marked as being entitled to a pension rebate, then the file also shows that the same property as having a Y result in the Specified Use column.
Before I lodge an enquiry with Revenue NSW has anyone else noticed this?
Dave

[David Grima]

Hi Emma,
Thank you for that – seems to confirm my thinking.
Agree with your comments about Industrial Land too.
Dave

[David Grima]

sorry my reference to confusion in my post relates to the reference to Public Hospitals and not Schools 🙂

[Author]

Posts