[John Towers]

Hi Amit,

As I understand it, if a financier takes possession of a property as a Mortgagee in Possession then they become liable for & can be sued for the outstanding rates.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Lisa,

That was going to be my suggestion, talk to the Northern Beaches Councils that issue Beach Parking stickers etc. I’m sure they have tried a multitude of ways to achieve their result over the years.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Rob,

I’m not sure that it can be that simplistic.

I think no matter what, you need someone in your office to look after the Councils interest in the matter/s. It might be possible to reduce from 2 internals to 1 but someone needs to do the Council preparation work. In the scenario you describe it means giving access to the MA to ALL your systems & I would have privacy issues there. How would you limit the access to only those accounts/names that are forwarded?

Whether we like it or not I think some MA’s are looking to use Councils as the Golden Goose. Maybe I’m just cynical.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Amit,

In answer to your questions:

1) Not that I’m aware of, although possibly they could hand it back to the Crown as the beneficial owner.
2) I refer you to Sec 570 LGA. The key word is “may”……….
3) Under Sec 570 it becomes the Councils land so the Council is free to deal with it as they desire.

Not sure if that will help you.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Emma,

Yes. The simple answer is that the number of assessments in Sched 1 should equate to the number of assessments in the rate file.

JT

[John Towers]

I have been advised that there was commentary in The Sunday Telegraph of 25/1/2015 regarding this matter. It would appear there is still some time until the bite of the Federal Election hits.

Premier Baird announced:

NSW Premier Mike Baird has pledged to bail out a previously federal-funded pensioner concession scheme while calling on the commonwealth to reverse its “savage” cuts. The election pledge follows the scheme being gouged of millions of dollars in funding by the federal government at the last Budget. The state government stepped in temporarily to ensure pensioners were not suddenly
forced to pay full price for public transport fares, energy and water bills, council rates and car registrations.

Mr Baird will today announce a Coalition government will continue to prop up the scheme for another three years at a cost of $343 million, while at the same time demanding the commonwealth
reinstate its funding.

“We believe the cuts to these concessions were harsh, which is why we acted swiftly to restore this vital support to the state’s pensioners and seniors for 12 months,” he said. “With our budget now
under control and the state’s finances strong we are in a position to extend this vital support for a further three years.”

Minister for Ageing John Ajaka said the government would continue to demand the commonwealth fulfil its commitments to NSW seniors, with the government set to raise the issue in future white paper discussions.

“A key commitment of the NSW Liberals and Nationals is protecting vulnerable members of our community, such as pensioners and seniors,” he said.

If I was cynical I’d think there was an election looming……………… and/or there were amalgamations in the wind.

JT

[John Towers]

Please see the below which is Centrelinks response to OLG regarding Digital Wallets. I’m sure we all know that collection of the copy of the card isn’t mandatory but we do it for our own purposes. I guess it all means do what you’ve been doing or what you think you should be doing. Thanks to Helen for following up.

JT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for your enquiry.

In regards to the Centrelink auditing process, physical records/photocopies of the Pensioner Concession Card are not required to be provided. It is solely at the discretion of the Council whether they are taking copies of the card or not, as this is not a requirement of the Centrelink Confirmation eServices Contract.

Therefore, Digital Wallets would fall into the same category. Digital Wallets would not be required to be provided as part of the Centrelink audit process.

A selection of customer consent forms are requested to confirm customer consent has been provided prior to the information being accessed through Business Online Services.

Let me know if you require anything further.

Regards
Shanleigh Munro
Account Manager

Third Party Organisations
Account Management Team NSW & ACT
Department of Human Services – Centrelink
56 Archer Street, Chatswood
P: (02) 9448 3807
M: 0477 317 481
F: (02) 9448 3905

[John Towers]

Hi Darryl,

An interesting conundrum you find yourself with.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments & encourage you to refuse the application in the first instance, I’m not sure you will be successful in the long term if they pursue it further.

The Newcastle Hospital case (even though under the 1919 LGA) would seem to indicate that they occupy etc the land. http://revpronsw.dev.nucleoserver.com/content/uploads/2014/03/Rates-Exemption-City-of-Newcastle-v.-Royal-Newcastle-Hospital.pdf

Also, Joyce v Ashfield MC refers to worship etc, although some of this has been overturned in a more recent case involving the use of a house as a Mosque in Bankstown Council area (2000) House of Peace v Bankstown.

Also when I was at Liverpool we had a case involving the Jehovahs Witnesses – International Bible Students Assoc v LCC- (old LGA again) in which the definitions for what is now 555(1)(e) where expanded by the L&E Court to mean things that I thought they were never meant to mean.

Without knowing the Organisation involved there has been some case law over last 30 years which has changed what were long term ‘understanding’ of what the law intended. There was another case

You might also see what you can find on a case involving Trustees of Marist Brothers & Byron SC in 1983.

Finally if they fail under this section they may reapply under another section eg PBI etc which many organisations have done over the years.

Good luck.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Amit,

I would rate the property from date of acquisition & make them lodge an application for non rateability including all necessary supporting documentation.

I disagree with Robert, I think they will apply under 556(h) & depending upon the use & their constitution etc I think they might be successful.

However, it is a process that you need to go through in order to determine their eligibility.

The fact it is being funded by DET is irrelevant. There maybe some parallels between this property & all those applications relating to

The fact it is being funded by DET is irrelevant. There maybe some parallels between this property & all those applications relating to PBI’s & Community Housing.

Will be interested to hear the outcome.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi MO,

As I understand it it’s the LEP & it’s application including application (or not) of highest & best use.

JT

[John Towers]

Kylie,

The short answer is you will definitely have to reissue notices for those properties affected by the amendment back to the time they changed. The date of effect will depend upon your rating policy. The reason for this is that you haven’t rated in accordance with the correct valuations based on the SP & the VG.

A problem you may come across is if any of the properties have been sold since the UE’s were changed. For these properties you will only be able to rate from the date of settlement, again depending upon your rating policy.

Good luck

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Fi,

No you can’t as the Inspection Fee relates to the business not the property.

The only things that can be included are property related charges eg K&G, footpaving, cleanup notices etc.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Ann,

You should raise your concerns with the Attorney General’s Dept & see whether they will provide any assistance. After all the Court comes under their jurisdiction.

As for the first matter you can always commence a new action for any R&C’s outstanding since the first judgement etc was entered.

JT

[John Towers]

I have contacted OLG regarding this issue & they weren’t aware of it either. It is my understanding they are going to investigate etc.

It’s nice to know that Centrelink are introducing these things & not advising stakeholders. Not.

As for the Application Form, it is actually approved/controlled by Centrelink so you are unable to amend the form.

If your Council is one that takes a copy of the card for record purposes then my suggestion at this stage is to continue to request to see the paper PCC which is still being issued. If the customer has a problem with that then they can raise that with Centrelink.

As to the application ever being electronic, as the customer needs to give Council authorisation to access Centrelink for auto verification I think that is some way off.

[John Towers]

Whilst we are still awaiting advice/comment from OLG regrading this issue I have found some comment on the SA LGA website regarding it:

In many instances Councils will not be aware of the extent of any impact of the repeal of the carbon price and hence will not be able to account separately for the impact. In cases where Councils are made aware of the impact, the LGA would suggest that information be reflected in public consultation on the 2015/16 draft annual business plan.

Whilst we are talking different states & legislation I think the comment about reflecting it in 2015/16 budget is pertinent.

To read full article http://lga.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?c=44036

[Author]

Posts