[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Andrew,

I have reviewed the NSW Government’s Response and I provide these comments in relation to the numbered recommendations in Table 1:

11. The geographic markers should be expanded to specifically include zoning boundaries, as some suburbs may need to be split up according to the zoning.

12. The need to publish the reasons for differential rates on the rates notice should be removed due to space requirements. Sometimes the reasons for such differential rates requires a whole report, not just a few lines.

25. Clarification is needed as to how councils can calculate the value of exemptions if the properties aren’t categorised for rating purposes. Should they be calculated on a business or residential rate?

31. IPART’s reasons for a vacant land sub-category was for Councils to either charge a higher rate for vacant land to promote development and discourage land banking, or charge a lower rate to recognise the lower demand and cost of providing council services. This sub-category should be explained in the eligibility wording that a rate for this sub-category can be higher or lower as it would be expected from an owner that a vacant land sub-category should be lower as they are not using council’s services, so “why should I pay more”.

32. The opportunity should be taken with the Farmland category to further strengthen the eligibility requirements to reduce court appeals around eligibility. Such changes should include setting minimum lot sizes for grazing enterprises (excluding any area used for residential or non-farming purposes), and further defining “significant and substantial commercial purpose or character” to include such requirements that the business should have an ABN, and have NLIS membership and PIC number where the land is used for livestock.

Obviously they have no plans to change exemptions or pension rebates so probably no use commenting but I would make one comment on each of these:

•In relation to exemptions, the NSW Government does not plan to make any changes that would adversely impact vulnerable people, but exemptions are adversely impacting all owners including vulnerable property owners (such as pensioners) who are subsidising the rates exemptions. Perhaps existing exemptions could remain but future exemptions in some cases should no longer be allowed, particularly where the use of the property does not benefit the Local Government Area specifically (which is most of them).
•In relation to pensioners, the NSW Government does not plan to make any changes that would adversely impact vulnerable people, however the current rebate already adversely impacts vulnerable people with the rebate not being indexed each year, so the value of the rebate diminishes each year. The rebate should at least be indexed each year.

Thank you,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Penrith City Council is applying the 2.6% at this stage.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Fiona,

A link to some information on our website about the current revaluation is here:

https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/council/council-business/land-valuations

The page also has a link to a FAQ brochure here:

https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/images/land_valuations_faqs.pdf

If you have any queries let me know.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Mick,

I have the same interpretation as you. I have never been 100% confident about the interpretation, but I always quote the legislation and claim that the building must be occupied as a place of worship before the exemption can be granted, and I have quoted this many times. I haven’t had any cases where they question this interpretation, and they wait until the occupation takes place to re-apply. I then grant the exemption from the date of issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Kind regards,
Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Lee,

War Widows may be eligible for discounts with other providers but to be eligible for pension rebate for their council rates they must be receiving a War Widow payment AND be eligible for a Pensioner Concession Card (whether or not they are actually given the card).

It is my understanding by reading the latest Centrelink Guide is that if a war Widow is on a full Income Support Supplement that they would be eligible for the Pensioner Concession Card so if I see the verification saying “No” to the PCC but the Payment Type is “ISS” I grant the rebate.

By my thinking, if they were eligible for a Pension Concession Card they would be issued a Pensioner Concession Card by the DVA or Centrelink, so if their PCC confirmation check says “No” it is unlikely that they are eligible and are probably only eligible for a Health Care Card or similar.

If the War Widow’s verification check says ‘No” to both the PCC and ISS Payment and believe that they are eligible, they will need to get a letter from the DVA confirming that:

(1) They are on a War Widow payment; and
(2) They meet the assets and income test for eligibility for a Pensioner Concession Card.

If they can not get a letter, it is likely that it is because they are on some other payment type that doesn’t make them eligible.

Kind regards,

Matthew

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Jeanette,

You can quote sec 574 regarding time for appeal on whether they are subject to (a)rates or (b) charges, is limited to 30 days after the service of the rates notice.

The section specifically mentions a holder of a licence or permit for land under the Crown Land Management Act 2016, so you may have some success using this. I would check if this provision applies to the land in question, considering the crown lands Act was enacted in 2016, to see if the Crown Land Act 2016 superseded whatever Act it was previously leased under.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Trevor,
Penrith City Council doesn’t accept Amex. We ceased accepting AMEX in 2006. We commenced charging a credit card surcharge in 2009 for Visa and Mastercard payments but we removed the surcharge in July 2018, but still only accept Visa and MasterCard.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Michael,

I haven’t seen or heard of this instance before, but I think that the customer would be eligible for a rebate. The Section of the LG Regulations (134(c)) that allows rebates for DVA Pensioners who have not been issued a Pensioner Concession Card by the DVA or Centrelink, is that they receive a pension adjusted for extreme disablement under Section 22(4)Veteran Entitlements Act. This Section of the VE Act only says that they degree of incapacity…is 100%. It doesn’t say that the degree must be permanent. In this case, there is a letter from the DVA which says that the injury is 100%, so on that basis I would grant the rebate.

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Jo-Louise,

For subdividers allowances (14T on the valuation list), the allowance expires three years from June 30 after the DP is registered (or if building or other works have commenced etc) so depending on how long the allowance has been on you may continue it until this expires if there isn’t long to go, and if you want to avoid a legal fight.

For a profitable expenditure allowance (14L on the valuation list), these expire 15 years after the expenditure was incurred (or if building or other works have commenced etc) so there is a bit more at stake and you may want to get legal advice about this one if these apply.

Alternatively you could remove the allowance, sighting that they are not the owner and it has been removed under the Act. If they don’t question it, you can continue and move on. If they question it you could then get advice and/or reinstate the allowances.

My gut feeling is that the allowances should probably continue.

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Maria,

If the DVA confirmation says “Yes” to disability on their online confirmation you can take it that they are eligible and proceed with approving the application. If it says no, it is probably unlikely that they are entitled, however you will need to refer them back to DVA to get the DVA to advise which section of the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA 1986) their pension was assessed (see point (4) below).

DVA customers must satisfy one of these criteria to be eligible (legislation paraphrased):

(1) Hold a pensioner concession card from DVA or Centrelink.
(2) War widow/Widower/widowed mother etc and eligible for pensioner Concession Card (will usually be on an ISS payment if eligible).
(3)Person receiving lumps sum under MRCA meeting assets/income test
(4)Person receiving pension adjusted for extreme disablement under section 22(4) of the VEA 1986 or a special rate under Section 24 of that Act.
(5)Person receives/has received Special Rate disability pension under MRCA 2004.

Your customer may be eligible under part (4) above, however they will need to get DVA to confirm write what section of the VEA 1986 their pension has been determined as a pension under extreme disablement under 22(4) or special rate pension under 24.

It is unfortunate that these customers must keep going back to the DVA, however there are multitudes of payments and pensions available to veterans under Commonwealth legislation, but there are only a specific few that entitle veterans to rates discounts under our State legislation.

Kind regards,
Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Glynes,

I hadn’t ever put that much thought into the interest calculation on the postponed part, so now I have taken the time to look I am stumped as to what the proper way is. Of course the vague wording of the legislation is never our friend.

I have read and re-read the legislation and still are not convinced either way which is the proper way.

“Interest accrues on parts of rates postponed under this Division as if the rates were overdue rates and, for this purpose, the due DATES for payment are taken to be the respective DATES on which the parts of the rates which were payable became due.”

The only thing I can come up with that lends the postponed part being divided into four instalments for interest purposes as Tech 1 have it is that the word due dates in the legislation is a plural (which indicates to me there is more than one due date for the postponed part).

I think it may be the case that whoever developed the postponement in the different software programs got their advice from different people and therefore developed the interest charges differently, and we have all just run with the system as it is.

I have no problem with the way it is with Tech 1 with dividing the postponed part into instalments and charging interest accordingly.

We only have 6 properties with postponed rates so the impact on us to change the way we do it is minimal.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Mary,

The easy way out is to say that he is not on Title, so he is not eligible for a rebate and see if they accept that and not push the issue any further.

Alternatively, if they have set up the Trust correctly, he may be able to prove that he is a beneficial owner under the Trust and he may meet the definition of “owner” under the legislation, thereby deeming him as being liable for rates, and therefore you could determine that he is eligible for a rebate. (If this is the case and he is the actual owner of the property, I am not sure that their intentions to protect the property from his wife would stand up in court anyway). You could ask for a copy of the Trust Deed and if the Trust makes mention that he is liable for all outgoings, particularly mentioning council rates, you may be able to determine that he is an owner and is eligible and provide the rebate.

Alternatively you may be able to determine under Section 577(2) that although he is not technically liable under the legislation, he is otherwise an eligible pensioner (has a Pension Concession Card and occupies the property as his principal place of residence) and that you are satisfied that he would be paying the rates and therefore provide a rebate under this Section.

Penrith Council does extend rebates to Life Tenants where they can prove that the Life Tenancy agreement makes specific mention of the Life Tenant being liable for the rates. If this was one of our customers and they provided a copy of the Trust deed showing he is liable for the rates, we would give a rebate. I know there are others in the industry that do not believe that life tenants are eligible so you should therefore rely on your own legal advice, and have some kind of policy or procedure around who you deem to be eligible.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Susan,

I have emailed a copy to you.

If anyone else is interested in our documents please let me know.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Tracey,

Penrith City Council has moved to verbal applications which we use for over the phone and over the counter applications. We do not use the online application form. We did not involve Human Services as we were acting under the direction from the Office of Local Government that only the online form needed Centrelink review.

I have looked at the Procedural Guide issued by Centrelink under the general contract we are now all under and it mentions that in relation to customer consent we are responsible for:

“…• confirming the identity of the customer before getting consent as per CCeS policy clause 13.2 (j)”

I have checked 13.2(j) of that Policy (from March 2016) which basically mentions the same thing:

“13.2 (j). confirm the identity of the Customer prior to obtaining consent”

We use the same way to identify a pensioner as we do for other Council enquiries so I am happy that we are properly identifying them as best as we can with the limited information we are given by the NSW Land Registry Services (name and postal address). I am also happy that our record of the consent complies with their requirements in relation to who, what when & how etc.

Our intention with our verbal forms was to wait until our first audit from Centrelink for them to tell us whether they were happy with our consent and auditing procedures.

I will wait to hear from you as to what they come back with about the verbal consent, otherwise I will carry on in blissful ignorance.

Kind regards,

Matthew.

[Matthew Saunders]

Hi Ken,

Penrith City Council has moved to accepting verbal applications before we have updated our policy, as our former customer service manager saw it more as a change of procedure rather than policy. I am currently looking at both our procedures and our policies, and will be happy to share if and when these are adopted.

Kind regards,
Matthew.

[Author]

Posts