[John Towers]

You need to know what notices have been returned & also check that changes have not been missed being recorded. You can choose to do this into your records system, rate system or store it in some-other way but you should always be prepared to be challenged on the basis that the notice/s were incorrectly addressed.

If you were taking legal action for recovery, you would also need to be prepared to say the notice was returned & these are the steps that were taken in order to find the customer. I could think of nothing worse than being asked & answering nothing.

This would be particularly the case when multiple notices are being returned from the same address over a period of time. Normal commercial rules apply here even if not specifically set out in the LGA.

I agree with Susan as to wanting to ensure payments are received & good customer service it is necessary to investigate.

Also Suzi’s comments re knowing what other things have happened regarding the assessment are crucial so that valuable resources are not wasted following up matters that will be resolved via other actions.

[John Towers]

Hi Megan,

It’s exactly the same process as applying for an SV where the increase would apply for the whole of area.

In simple terms:

You decide how much you want in $ terms per year & whether it’s to be permanent or for a specified period. You then consult with the relevant area of the community regarding it. If it’s accepted & Council decides to proceed you calculate the total notional income for the next year & work out what the % increase required is atking into account the announced rate peg. You then complete the relevant IPART documnetation relating to that type of increase & sit back & await IPART’s advice.

If you need anything further give me a call.

JT

[John Towers]

FYI.

In July 2011 I attended a meeting with Australian Payments Clearing Association (APCA) & various other interested/affected parties regarding the future of cheques.

Included in the meeting were representatives of various charitable groups, community organisations, LGNSW, Law Society, government departments & other bodies that had a significant reliance of accepting payments by or making payments via cheque.

There was much discussion & some groups were in favor of reducing a reliance on cheques however others were strongly against such a move. I don’t need to go into the pros & cons.

However, the major stumbling block to reducing a reliance on cheques was the Law Society particularly regarding solicitor’s trust funds (STF’s). At that time ALL transactions via STF’s were required to be via Cheque, there was no other option, & I believe that to still be the case. The possibility of a company/personal credit card being used & then reimbursed we were told was not legal & outside the legislation. This is why solicitors still apply for certificates etc by cheque or they utilise a search company & make a monthly payment to that company.

I have looked at the APCA website & whilst there is discussion regarding changing payment methods, nothing has happened at this time & will not happen prior to 2017. Also in looking at their timetable I noted that they have struggled to meet the deadlines placed on the various stages of the process, so I’m guessing that 2017 will be too soon as well.

In order for payments to be made by solicitors by methods other than cheque there will need to be legislation amended & I am not aware of anything being suggested in regard to this.

As for putting Bpay codes etc on 603’s, my question is would this be legal? The certificate is a legal document & what is to be shown on it is legislated. I know in NSC’s case we do not have the necessary real estate available on the document. It is I believe a decision for each Council to make taking into account their various circumstances.

As for payment directly in the Council bank account, I know that NSC would not allow this to happen. I’m sure you have all found, once an organisation gets access to the number all manner of payments start appearing & Council has great difficulty in reconciling the account. Further, it is not an accepted method of payment at any Council that I am aware of. If you are going to allow settlement payments to be paid directly into Councils account would you also allow large corporations to do the same thing?

Just some thoughts.

[John Towers]

Hi Megan

TAFE are exempt as the sites are owned by the Crown & TAFE is a State Govt organisation & are not under lease for private purposes, not with standing that they charge a fee for their service.

You will generally find that Universities are set up under Commonwealth legislation & as such are exempt. Andrew Butcher from Campbelltown might be able to provide you with more insight into this.

Yes it would probably come under 556 but I would be asking them to tell ,e what Sec they are claiming under.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Susan,

To take legal action you would need to request ASIC for the company to be reinstated/registered.

Then you would follow normal recovery processes.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Amit,

You could try calling Jane at Byron as she held an auction a couple of weeks ago.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Cherie

NSC does. WOuld you not be able to find some thru looking at Sched2 on website?

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Linda,

We don’t have that many, but I would have thought that .txt was the way to go. Same as other payment files received.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Linda,

The refund is able to be done however it is done for the current year. I assume the account was in credit & that credit was rolled as part of EOY & Levy.
When it’s processed you just to ensure that the balances on the account are the same as the levy was for the current year.
If you need to adjust the GL to show that it has been refunded you can have a journal done but the rates sub ledger has to show the transaction as happening in the current year.
Any other questions give me a call.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Linda

I will forward you some information via email.

[John Towers]

Hi Kylie,

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to stop a Council selling a property which is subject to an instalment order, it certainly isn’t covered in the LGA. However I’m not sure that you would want the publicity & flack that it might attract.

You can always go back to court asking for the order to be amended giving your reasons as to why.

JT

[John Towers]

Just to add further comment to Rob’s explanation:

If for some reason the rates for the year are levied late eg 3rd October (Supp or Split or whatever) & the person becomes eligible for the PCC on 2nd October, then they are entitled to a FULL rebate for the year.

The proportional year rebate only applies if the rate notice is issued prior to the person becoming eligible for a PCC.

Hope that makes sense.

[John Towers]

Hi Lee

NSC has contained in it’s Revenue Policy – 1 DWM per occupancy. This based on transparency & equity. If there is a building of 20 strata units they are ALL required to pay a DWM so why should the 20 flat non strata next door pay a different amount?

We have had no complaints.

[John Towers]

Given that the circular talks about our responsibility to ensure our level of overdue rates is minimised but we should also not increase costs for the ratepayer “who can’t afford it & is suffering hardship (lol)” does this mean that we need to load up the court system with even more matters to ensure we collect the required $ numbers?

It seems to me that they want us to take a softly softly approach to collections but they haven’t given us any better tools than we already have, which is use the courts as a last resort because that is what the customer understands.

[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

[Author]

Posts