[John Towers]

I agree with Ken regarding policies.

However, I’m a bit confused as to what the stories actually relate to. They talk about rates but they also mentions charges. They do say it relates to water etc so is it actually user charges or access charges? If so then it isn’t about retrospective rating, it is about ensuring that users pay for what they use & according to the Councils adopted F&C’s. Also, could some of it relate to businesses being charged residential access charges rather than business?

[John Towers]

Hi Lee,

Probably doesn’t really answer your question but I think Sec 712 provides advice towards an answer.

The LGA does not provide any opportunity for someone not to pay rates except if the property is non rateable & even that cannot be argued as a defence if Council commences action to recover outstanding R&C’s.

The customer can raise an argument if they so desire but it is then a matter for the court as to whether they accept it or not.

Interestingly, Sec 36 VLA allows Council to recover outstanding amounts even though an objection has been lodged & not determined.

JT

[John Towers]

The newest version of SS9 is now available on the OLG website

[John Towers]

There’s been another small error found in cell M6 of the Calculation sheet (won’t accept negative values) which OLG are fixing & will advise when new version of SS9 is available

[John Towers]

Hi Emma,

Probably a bit late now but I would leave the names as is & send it care of the solicitors or Permanent Custodians.

[John Towers]

The rate book is a record of all transactions throughout a year, owners name, property details, ASON, levy, payments, interest, legal costs etc. Whilst most are electronic these days in years gone by they were kept on microfiche or microfilm or even hardcopy.

All Councils should have this information available for many years. I know at NSC we have records back to 1970’s which are easily accessed. I’m sure I look I could go back further.

From this I could advise what rates were levied in a particular year. This is what I think your customer is looking at. At previous Councils I have been asked to provide details for 30+ years for court cases etc which were able to be provided. I would think this is a fairly common occurrence.

What I think 25.5.4 refers to is actual copies of notices rather than a rate book history. I don’t think your customer wants copies of the actual notices but details of the amounts payable for the various years. If someone was looking at possessory title for a property they would need up to 20 years details.

If you can’t go back far enough from your records then there are ways that you should be able to calculate what was payable for each year etc.

I just hope that you have something in your F&C’s to cover the time you would spend getting the information together.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Lee,

I think Byron had something similar so they maybe able to assist with your enquiry. However, from memory I don’t think they were eligible.

JT

[John Towers]

Following the state budget release yesterday I ask OLG the impact on Councils re funding of the mandatory rebate. The following was received from Mark in response to my enquiry:

As announced in yesterday’s budget, the State Government has agreed to “step in” and fund the shortfall in funding from the Federal Government for concessions for 2014/15. That means councils will continue to be reimbursed 55% of the cost of the concession/s (rates and DWMC and water & sewer, where the council provides those services). This commitment is for 2014/15 only – the State Government has indicated it will be seeking to negotiate with the Federal Government for the reinstatement of the grant funding over the next 12 months. While this may create some uncertainty for future years, councils can be assured of a 55% reimbursement for 2014/15. A press release regarding the matter is: http://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/124359/14.2_Minister_Ajaka_-_State_Budget_Protects_Senior_and_Pensioner_Concessions.pdf

Thanks to Mark for the response.

JT

[John Towers]

Hate to disagree but

what about 25.9.1
Registers or equivalent summary records of rateable property including rate books, rate cards
Required as State archives

or

25.5.4
Records of notices issued to ratepayers in relation to valuations, rates and charges, rate remissions, classification of land, etc.
Retain minimum of 10 years after the year in which the valuation was made, then destroy

Think the actual question needs clarification.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Glynes

Refer to them to the LGA dictionary & the definition of ‘eligible pensioner’

eligible pensioner, in Division 1 of Part 8 of Chapter 15, in relation to a rate or charge levied on land on which a dwelling is situated means a person:

(a) who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations, and
(b) who occupies that dwelling as his or her sole or principal place of living.

I’m sure on the information you’ve supplied they fail (b).

JT

[John Towers]

Just a further comment regarding this, the mandatory rebate at this stage is set in concrete by legislation so a change to the rebate would require legislative change.

What isn’t set in concrete is the funding of the rebate. Since 1993 (yes I was doing this stuff then) the Council has funded 45% of the mandatory rebate with the State contributing 55% (with some Federal assistance). Prior to this it was 50/50 between Council & State.

With the Federal budget, the Federal contribution has been withdrawn which means that either the State has to find additional monies from within it’s budget to meet the 5% shortfall or the funding model will change.

From discussions I have had it has been suggested that the funding model will revert to the former model ie 50/50.

I appreciate it is late in the budget process but I believe Councils should be looking at worst case scenario for their budgets.

Yes this will have a bigger impact on Councils which have a high ratio of pensioners in that the rebate contribution from the State will be reduced & the Council will need to find additional monies to fund their proportion of the rebate.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Emma

Sec 575(1) LGA is the authority.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Ann,

If the judgement was given for an amount which covered several assessments & the Court Order for Instalments was for the judgement then Council needs to ensure that the payments are apportioned across all relevant accounts on a proportional basis. Whilst this may take time & resources there is no other way, apart from getting the customer to pay to each account.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Emma,

I agree with both the above. Surely their bank rec told them it hadn’t been presented so why didn’t they follow it up? Also, I assume that they received various other correspondence between the two dates regarding the account so why didn’t they follow it up then. Also, Council would have various other methods of payment which they could have used.

JT

[John Towers]

Hi Ann,

There is a range of information regarding such matters which can be accessed at:

http://archive.revpronsw.dev.nucleoserver.com/members/forum.aspx

This is the archived forum from the previous version of the website.

JT

[Author]

Posts