A QUEEN LAW

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 280, 21 March 1929, Page 8

A QUEEN LAW

REFUNDS DISALLOWED. Local Body Members’ Risks. Should a private individual or firm, by a misunderstanding, pay a sum of money for the purpose of settling a debt which, it later transpires, had already been settled, then a refund could be claimed with success. Not so in local body law: once money is paid for rates, no refund can be legally given, no matter whether some other party has, unknown to the second payer, already paid, or whether for some reason a wrong charge has been levied. The Audit Office advised the Hungahunga Drainage Board by letter on Saturday that it would be necessary to recover from Mr. G. J. Dalziel £2l 17s illegally granted as a refund in rates. The chairman (Mr. F. E. Hughes) said Mr. Dalziel had been wrongly classified, and it was left with him to adjust the matter. An amended classification was put in, and that was what the board worked on. It was possible that the rate was struck , °u the old and not the new classification. If Mr. Dalziel would not refund it would cost the board members £3 each. Mr. Dalziel had paid the rates under protest and a refund had later been made. Mr. Mathers: Was legal advice obtained ? The chairman: Up to that time it was thought that a refund of rates could legally he made. Recently there was a case in the King Country in which a man raid £IOO on land he did not own, and could not get it back. Mr. Mathers: There is another case in which two members of a family oaid rates on the same property and could not get a refund. The Act is ridiculous. It was decided to refer the letter to the board’s solicitor. It was stated that in May. 1926, Mr. Hansen moved and Mr. Mathers seconded the motion that the refund be granted. Mr. Mathers: That would be after the chairman’s report. The clerk: It might be one of those things we can keep steadily in view. A member suggested that if the board had to meet the account the travelling expenses for two or three years would be gone. Mr. Hallett tried to show that he was not present at the' meeting when the refund was granted, but was assured that this did not relieve him of responsibility.