[John Towers]

I’m not sure that the possible move to CIV is quite that simplistic.

My understanding is that ALL properties of the same value would make the same rating contribution whether they be houses or units. Why shouldn’t they?

Also I’m not sure that MUD’s etc could be captured in a proposed SP sub category however CIV would capture them. The concept of the ability for rating by occupancy has been discarded from my readings & discussions with authorities.

In regards to business properties major shopping centres, to the best of my knowledge, have minimal if any LV increase each cycle, yet we read in the papers the enormous values they are sold for. Under the current rating structure if Councils don’t subcategorise them their rating contribution decreases each GVal. Again why shouldn’t their capacity to pay be recognised?

[John Towers]

Hi Emma,

Yes 573 applies even if the land was separate titles prior to the sale. If you don;t want to apportion yourself you can ask VG to apportion for you.

I would apportion the outstanding rates on the basis of the new LV’s & then write to the new owners (as suggested by Simone) & allow them to resolve the matter/s. That way they can’t say they weren’t aware when you issue the new years notices. They could have been told that the Council would issue new notices for the 2 properties because the rates hadn’t been issued prior to settlement. It’s always better to deal with the owners rather than solicitors because the owners will want it paid.

Also, Sec 560 tells you who is liable for payment & since July 7 the new owners have been liable whether jointly or severally. I would be quoting that to them as well. The fact that they didn’t get a new 603 is irrelevant to the process, once they acquire 560 says it becomes their problem.

Good luck.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Jenita

We do for a couple of our special rates. These rates apply across whole of council.

JT

[John Towers]

We lodged a submission when the request for submissions regarding the changes to the LGA was announced. As you would recall that inquiry was closed & it was suggested that a separate inquiry in Chapter 15 should be held.

I don’t know whether previous submissions are being brought forward but we possibly should ascertain whether they are. Even if they are then it is probably necessary to update what we lodged at the time to make it current, as from memory there wasn’t a lot regarding CHP’s in the original but that has obviously become a major issue for the industry.

I am unable to get to this session but I believe we should be represented.

[John Towers]

Hi Susan,

I agree with KB.

[John Towers]

Hi guys,

Another late response but I agree.

As Council was not the owner at the time the rates were levied they would remain payable.

What happens going forward is another question.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Tracey,

I believe your proposal is against the intent of the legislation.

As Robert says the rebate applies to both Rates & DWM not just one.

I believe it should be considered a ‘payment’ by the customer & apportioned in accordance with the receipting requirements of the legislation, except a pension rebate for the current year would not be apportioned against arrears only current.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Mchelle

We offer Direct Debit for rates by any term the customer wants to pay (Annual, Quarterly, Monthly, Fortnightly, Weekly etc) but we do not accept credit cards due to PCI concerns.

The process is managed in house via Civica.

We did look at using BPoint for credit cards but it was thought the process was too onerous as the Council was responsible for maintenance & updating card information re dates etc.

For rates we have 509 Annual, 1626 Quarterly, & about 20 ad hoc (weekly, monthly etc).

We also offer DD for debtors & do offer limited Credit card as part of this.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Emma,

NSC uses Secure Pay for online payments (Civica supported). We accept Rates Sundry Debtors & Certificate payments.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Tracey

I would agree they should be ratable as they are subject to a lease for private purposes.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Lee

The SV application is purely as ‘snapshot’ of what was applicable as the time the application was made.

I would suggest that prior to Council exhibiting &/or adopting the R&C’s for the year you redo the structure taking into account ALL of the changes that have occurred since the application was lodged ensuring that the adopted structure is compliant.

This has been our practice for many years.

You have to remember that any number of factors can affect the structure proposed for or an SV or advertised.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Andrea

NSC in order:

1) Yes if requested & the account has been pif.
2) No Council fee but they are required to pay any Agent costs. We do not do any in-house recovery via the courts.
3) Not sure, & I’m not sure what Council’s costs in these matters would be. We direct them straight to the agent & do not get involved in the admin process.
4) If requested yes, on same basis as above.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi David,

Generally a home occupation is defined in within the EP&A Act or the LEP. However you then need to make a decision as to the dominate use of the property given the various uses & areas used of the property eg Doctors surgery attached to or part of a dwelling. You would need to take into account the various court decisions when doing this.

[John Towers]

Hi Mick,

We don’t have an urgency fee as we issue next day, however we do charge an electronic delivery fee of $20.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Tim,

I believe that the rates are now the responsibility of CBA. I assume the bank has taken possession of the property & evicted the previous owner. You probably should talk to the bank/solicitors regarding payment.

JT

[Author]

Posts