[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Jason,

We don’t appear to be having this problem. I did some bulk checks last week so I ran a check on some that came back as deceased to see if the same thing happens for us. I did a check back to 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2025 and none of them are showing as deceased as at 1 July 2024 or as at 1 July 2025 like what is happening to you. I guess this may be a question for Centrelink.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Cherie,

At the time I asked Centrelink to add the MRCA results I wasn’t aware that a change to our individual checks would result in our batch enquiries not being compatible. It was when I ran my first batch enquiry that I realised that it wouldn’t work.

I didn’t have the resources to make the relevant change to the batch enquiry at the time so I had to get Centrelink to remove the MRCA results. As we are going through an upgrade soon with our internal rates system, I am waiting until that goes through before I look at re-visiting getting he MRCA results added.

We are with Tech 1 and moving to CiA in the next year.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Cherie,

It was Circular 07-50 in relation to procedural changes.

Backdating of claims:

Section 579 of the Act prescribes that the rebate for pensioner concessions can
be limited by regulation. As there is no regulation that puts a time limit on the
backdating of the pensioner concession, the time limit is required to be set by
way of council resolution. It is open to a council to adopt a policy of allowing
pensioner rates reductions in respect of previous years rates.

The Department considers that discretion in regard to the backdating of claims
should only be exercised where there are substantive reasons provided for the
pensioner not submitting a proper application at the time each previous years
rates were levied. Furthermore, the council should take all reasonable steps to
ensure that the application is a bona-fide one (eg insist upon conclusive proof
that the person did in fact permanently reside in the subject premises at the
relevant time).

I will email it across.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Pete,

I have emailed you a copy but I thought I would add the info here to for the benefit of others as well.

This is the wording of our letter. Our old letter was reviewed as we received complaints about it as well and this is what our Communications Team came up with:

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have been advised by Centrelink and/or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs that your eligibility for the pension rebate on your Council rates has ceased. As a result of this information your future rates notices will be issued without the pension rebate.

We understand that there may be a number of reasons for the change in your eligibility to receive a rebate and that you may be receiving this letter at a difficult time.

If you believe that you are, or still should be entitled to a rebate please contact either Centrelink or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to discuss your concerns.

Please do not hesitate to contact Council on XXXXX if we can be of any assistance.

Kind regards,

Matthew
Penrith City Council

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Glynes,

At Penrith we have had some similar comments from our customers. Some are saying they don’t remember registering and others are saying they don’t get any notifications from their bank.

I registered to get my notices by Bpay recently to see if there was any issue and I think the problem is at the customer’s end and not our end (or the banks). I think they are ignoring notifications and/or emails when they pop up.

I can’t obviously say how it is for every bank but I am with the CBA and I get an email and a Netbank notification when the bill has been issued. When I go to the CBA app I can click on the notification and it tells me who the bill is from and how much. From there I can pay (or do nothing) or open the bill. Bpay says depending on the bank customers either get a sms, email or bank message so they are getting notified one way or another.

It could be that people have the wrong email with their bank, or get too many notifications and ignore.

We are planning on doing a mail-out to some of our BPayview customers soon to make sure they are getting their notices.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Lyndal,

We had a similar one a few weeks ago. We got a copy of the card that had “TPI” on it but the disability was saying “No” in the verification and the customer was adamant that they were on a disability payment. On investigation we found he was receiving benefits under the MRCA. I guess customers who receive a Special Rate Disability are on a different disability type than standard DVA customers so for MRCA SRD payment recipients you need to look at the SRD field to say yes (as you did).

I didn’t realise that we could get MRCA results for the DVA enquiries but I contacted Centrelink and got ours updated yesterday. Before that we were asking the customers to provide a letter from the DVA so you have helped my by pointing that out (THANK YOU). If anyone else wants the MRC added to their results just contact the Centrelink Helpdesk: helpdesk.ccs@servicesaustralia.gov.au and they will send a form to fill out and return.

I also guess that the start date for the SRD is similar to the start date for a pension concession card where you keep trying different dates until you get a hit. I would rely on this start date unless the customer can provide other evidence of some other earlier start date.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Dani,

See page 134 ( page 140 of the PDF) of IPARTS’s Final Report from December 2016. They summarised the assistance provided by each state at the time.

They give some other info that might help you too.

Kind regards,

Matthew

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Matthew Saunders. Reason: *too

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Emma,

I did a quick overview for our new councillors as part of a recent report. I will email you a copy but I will post the details here as well for the benefit of others. This was the info on the slides for the benefit of the new Councillors:

Slide 1

Rates Overview
*Rates are based on unimproved land value and rating category
*Land valuations updated every three years
*There are four principal rating categories:
*Farmland
*Residential
*Business
*Mining (not applicable for Penrith City Council)
*Sub-categorisation also available within categories

These are the notes attached to the slide 1:
Unimproved value is what the land would be valued if vacant – 2nd year of the valuation cycle.
Properties are categorised according to their actual use, some different rules apply for vacant land but basically it is based on the zoned use.
Penrith Council uses 2 Business sub-categories
And 2 Residential sub-categories

Slide 2

Rates Overview (cont)

There are three rate structures:
*Ad Valorem only
*Ad Valorem with minimums (used by Penrith City Council)
*Base Rate plus ad valorem

Current rateable properties: XXXXX
Current annual rates income: $XXXX million

Allowable rates income increases by a rate-peg each year, calculated by IPART using the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI)
From 2022-23 the rate-peg includes an additional % on top of the LGCI to allow for a population increase

These are the notes attached to the slide 2:
1. Ad Valorem (only) -Land value multiplied by a rate.
2. Ad Valorem with a Minimum Rate (Council’s current method) – Land value multiplied by a rate, but properties under a certain land value threshold subject to a minimum rate.
3. Base Rate plus Ad Valorem – Combination of a part Base (fixed) amount plus Part land value multiplied by a rate.

There were other parts of the presentation related to other matters but they did include tables showing average rates increases and sample suburb rate increases.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Todd,

At this late stage it looks like Penrith City Council is applying.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Andrew,

It is a Possible for Penrith City Council.

Thanks,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Melissa,

The McKenzie v Randwick City Council NSWLEC 42 (26 February 1996) in the Case Law section on the NSWRP website talks about dominant use and is related to mixed development which it looks like your enquiry relates to (as you have posted it on the mixed development section of the forum).

Most of the cases are about dominant use so if you can be more specific about your enquiry I may be able to direct you to some other relevant cases specific to your enquiry.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Todd,

I agree that they are not exempt under this Section based on your assessment however if the shops are vacant and unleased they could still be entitled to an exemption under 555(1)(a) being land owned by the Crown, not being land held under a lease for private purposes. This is because Sydney Metro is declared a Government Agency under 38(2) of the Transport Administration Act, and under 13A(1) of the Interpretations Act “If an Act provides that a body is (a) a NSW Government agency…….the body has the status, privileges and immunities of the Crown”.

If they have applied under 555(1)(g3) only you can knock them back under that Section citing your reasons, and see if they come back with a different argument under 555(1)(a).

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Andrew

Penrith City Council has a property owned by the The NSW Animal Welfare League that we exempt from rating. It is used a an animal shelter and veterinary surgery.

You can contact me directly if you have any queries.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Jeanette,

Penrith City Council has a contamination service charge. Where it is found that an Organics bin has been contaminated with waste (other than acceptable waste for that bin) on three occasions through Council’s Contamination Management Program, and the owner and occupier have been informed and advised on each occasion, then a Large Weekly (Contamination) Service shall apply.

When the service is changed to this contamination service there is an additional annual charge of $575 on top of the standard $399 annual charge because the property is given a large red bin that is collected weekly (compared to a small red lid bin collected fortnightly) and the green bin is taken away. This usually gives them an incentive to sort their waste more appropriately.

The property either stays on the service, they change their bin services by ordering extra bins to meet their capacity requirements and/or they agree to better sort their waste.

We try to visit the owner/tenant before any change is made to introduce the contamination service as it is our intention to educate and not to penalise.

I have not had much involvement with the service so I have checked our records to see what kind of correspondence we do. It looks like most contamination is done by tenants(not owners) which adds a level of complexity since it is obviously the owner that pays the bill. We cover this off by sending a letter to the owner asking for their assistance and advising that “This increase would be directly applied to the rates notice and you may wish to pursue cost recovery from your tenant should this occur.”

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Dani

Penrith City Council has one property that is owned by a Men’s Shed organisation and we provide an exemption from rates for that property.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Author]

Posts