[James Bentley]

Hi Andrew,
CCC will lodge a submission which is critical of both the unreasonably high fee increases proposed for country-zoned councils and also the unreasonable charge differential between country and coastal zones. CCC borders coastal zone councils and we have much more in common with them as regional councils than we have differences. CCC’s submission will also express support for the fixed-fee pricing model advocated by NSWRP in your submission last year. Will send our submission to admin@revpronsw.dev.nucleoserver.com
Cheers,
James

[James Bentley]

Hi Mel,

I recently had one of these requests for a sliver of a parcel still legally owned by someone who died in the 1880s. The parcel itself was included in a current assessment, undoubtedly for the reason Ian mentioned in his reply above. We follow the same process as he does. In my experience the prospective owners are satisfied with this approach after having to discharge the onerous evidentiary requirements demanded by LRS in these cases.

Cheers,
James

[James Bentley]

Hi everyone,

At the last Hunter & Central Coast RP meeting there were some comments made about the potential inadequacy of the verbal pensioner concession application form with respect to future auditing by the Department of Human Services. I requested clarification from Human Services and received a (carefully-worded) response:

Ms Shanleigh Munro, Account Manager, Third Party Operations, Department of Human Services has today confirmed that “the version of consent form that you have provided in your email is the current approved version of verbal application for all NSW Councils. Any future updates, these will be referred through to NSW Office of Local Government for their distribution.” I called her and asked whether or not production of the current verbal application form would be sufficient for the purposes of future auditing by Human Services and her response was that the form itself is sufficient to establish consent by the ratepayer. I asked if any additional proof (such as audio files) would be required at audit, and she mentioned that the form itself is sufficient.

I understand that her written response was not as concise as our conversation over the phone, but she has left me in no reasonable doubt that completion of the verbal application form is sufficient to prove ratepayer consent and accordingly Cessnock City Council will continue to accept verbal applications for the pensioner concession.

Cheers,
James

[James Bentley]

Hi Rod, I agree with Simone about the onus for non-rateability resting with the claimant. As an ancillary observation, Cessnock re-categorises farmland assessments on receipt of the notice of sale from LRS. The reason is that in the absence of any other information, we can’t be sure that farmland activities are continuing under the new ownership. We send a new ownership letter including a declaration of category, and information about lodging a farmland rating application. Whether a response is received or not, we find that this gives us a more accurate idea of what is actually happening on the property.
Cheers,
James

[James Bentley]

Hi Jason, we aggregate the charges when they are incurred together. For example, the assessment rates transaction history shows “SLC Legal Costs” totaling $492.00, but these costs are actually comprised of three separate charges viz. court issue fee, solicitor’s costs and service fee. Any further costs are added to the assessment account as individual line items as they are incurred, like judgment solicitor’s costs for example.

Hopefully I’ll catch up with you in a couple of weeks…will ask how things are going in my childhood stomping ground! Cheers, James

[James Bentley]

Hi Jenita, if you’re talking about the execution of a writ for the levy of property, I would seriously recommend that you consider other alternatives. Our experience is that the Sheriff’s Office looking after our area is increasing slow to execute these writs, and frequently Council receives correspondence from the Sheriff stating that the writ has not been executed due to various organisational exigencies. No further action can take place while you await execution, and if nothing eventually happens, you’re back where you started and the property owner owes even more. Perhaps your particular Sheriff’s Office is a little more pro-active. I believe it’s much more effective to serve an examination notice, followed up by an examination summons. The latter comes with the warning of potential apprehension if the summons is ignored, which in our experience can be surprisingly persuasive. A bird in the hand comes to mind. I’m interested to hear of others’ experiences. All the best, James.

[James Bentley]

Crystal clear. Thanks very much for that Matthew.

[James Bentley]

Hi everyone,
I have a general question which has been prompted by the new form. As far as Centrelink pensioners are concerned, my understanding is that Council is only entitled to ask for – and verify – Pensioner Concession Card entitlement. The type of pension granted to the ratepayer is immaterial. Has Council ever been able to ask for – or even consider – the type of Centrelink pension in order to make a determination regarding the grant or quantum of pensioner rebate?

Thanks,
James

[James Bentley]

Thanks Robert Hay for confirming that like other Crown leases, the assessment becomes non-rateable from the date of lease termination. The VG was uncharacteristically quick with their property cancellation in this case!

[James Bentley]

Hi Mick,
I agree with Andrew. Aggregation isn’t exactly a burning issue out here, but the references to unfair application and hardship in s548A(1) beg the question of what is reasonable. Many units are sold with parking and storage included. Is it reasonable for an owner to buy extra parking and storage? I think so, but some type of arbitrary limit has to apply to distinguish common circumstances from exceptional ones. That’s why personally I believe that one separate car space and/or storage lot is reasonable. The question of whether all lots must be in the same strata plan is an interesting one. Not all plans nowadays are discrete, identifiable buildings with clear separation. In some cases they can be interwoven and indistinguishable in physical terms. Not allowing aggregation may be illogical in such circumstances, but that’s an issue for greater minds than mine to ponder.
Cheers,
James

[James Bentley]

If Council has only received a single payment of rates maybe it could be argued that no unjust enrichment occurred because Council simply received the amount that was levied…the source of the payment is irrelevant. Of course Mr A would take a different view…

[James Bentley]

Hi Adele, I felt my skin crawling while reading your post. Certainly not an enviable situation. If an historical search indicates that Mr A was never the registered proprietor (life tenancy considerations aside), I think it may be difficult to argue that he was ever liable to pay rates under s560. However, his conduct over 14 years indicates that he definitely thought he was liable to pay, indeed that conduct is entirely responsible for the position in which you find yourself. Is Council supposed to contact every ratepayer after every rates payment to confirm that he/she intended to make that payment?? Regarding interest, I would say “no” in principle based on a reading of ss593 & 594. Although different scenarios, both sections refer to refunding excess payments of rates without a whisper of any interest payable by Council. Good luck, and keep us updated.

[James Bentley]

Hi all, administrative nightmares aside, does anyone else see a potential conflict between proposed cl 22 (preventing interest accruing after referral of a debt) and s566 LGA (prescribing that interest accrues on rates and charges that remain unpaid after they become due and payable)?
Cheers,
James

[Author]

Posts