Council to keep overpaid rates

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 11, Issue 500, 24 August 1993, Page 9

Council to keep overpaid rates

A five-year limit on a refund of rates incorrectly charged to Waiouru Station stays, the Ruapehu District Council has decided, although rates were incorrectly charged for possibly 30 years. An error was made by the Valuation Department whereby a 13 hectare block of land was incorrectly placed on the then Waimarino County Council roll, while it was already on the Rangitikei County Council roll. From records available the error goes back to at least 1966 and possibly 1959. Former Waiouru Station proprietor Bill Harding asked the Ruapehu District Council at their meeting on Friday 1 to review its decision to limit the refund to five years of rates. Although many were sympathetic, the majority (8-4) of councillors voted not to refund the full amount. In the opinion of the Council's lawyers, the council was obliged to refund the rates paid on the block of land, but only up to five years prior to the error being identified and corrected. Mr Harding was earlier given a cheque for $414.13, but he retumed it, asking for a refund for the full period. "You've rated land that wasn't yours to rate and had my money for 30 years," Mr Harding told the council, "you've had the use of the money - it's now time you gave it back." "Why should I be worse off for having dealt with the Ruapehu District Council," he asked. He challenged the

council's lawyer's opinion, which stated that the relevant section of the Act had to be read in conjunction with another which laid down the five-year limit. "Who say's it has to be read with (section) 118(1)? (the part stating a five-year limit," he asked. "It's just one person's opinion." Mr Harding told the council he had been trying since 1988 to have the matter sorted out. Cr Weston Kirton said it was unfair to take details of unpaid rates from Waiouru Station into account and asked why they were in the report. Chief Executive Cliff Houston said the council had a right to know the full picture. Later in the discussion Mr Harding said he had decided not to pay the other rates (correctly) charged because he was not getting any satisfaction with regard his grievance. Unpaid rates amounted to more than $45,000. Mr Houston said the council was legally obliged to rate according to the entries on the valuation roll and that it had done so. The onus is always on the ratepayer to check their entry on the roll, he said. "That may be difficult in some circumstances but that doesn't put the onus back on the council." If a ratepayer was disadvantaged the refund could go back five years, but if the council was disadvantaged it could only be corrected within the current year, he said. "There has been no

negligence on Council's part, the Council was acting on the Valuation Roll as it legally obliged todo." Cr KiAon said if the matter was taken to court it would only be for lawyers benefit and that morally, he would rather see the money go to Mr Harding. Cr June Baker said the council had to follow the law and had no right to give away ratepayers' money. Mr Harding said he was not asking for other ratepayers' money, that he was asking for money that was his. Cr Stuart Shaw moved that if the money could be refunded without breaching the act, then it should be done. Many councillors expressed support in principal, but did not want to agree until they knew what the dollar figure was. Mr Houston said it would be a difficult and expensive task to calculate rates paid over the 30 year period, by searching through the county minutes books. Cr Ellen Gould spoke against the motion, saying she agreed it was "an awful mess, but not Council's mess". She agreed it was the ratepayer' s responsibility to see that the roll was correct. Put to the vote, the motion was lost. "It's taken me five j years trying to get this to council," said Mr Harding in parting, "and you say it is the ratepayer 's respon- . sibility."