Recovery of Rates from Crown Tenants.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4373, 13 February 1909, Page 2

Recovery of Rates from Crown Tenants.

One of the matters brought before the Commissioner of Crown Lands by representatives of the Raglan County Council was the recovery of rates from Crown tenants. The Council’s reading of the Land Act is that the Lands Board shall pay the rates of a defaulting Crown tenant, but in the Council’s experience the Board had not assisted the local body.

Referring to a Waingaro case, the Councillors present explained to the Commissioner that they had acceded to the Board’s instructions that the Council , must exhaust its legal remedies first, and had issued a summons, got judgment, taken out a judgment summons without satisfying its claims, and then had got no rates from the Board. The Commissioner said that all the Land Boards in the colony were unanimous in their interpretation of the Act, and were resolved not to do the tax-collecting for the local bodies, who, in many cases, were very lax indeed. Local bodies, he said, should distrain, and if they could satisfy the Board that there were no effects, then the Board would be prepared to consider the matter. Cr. Bankart said it seemed necessary to get this clause of the Act amended and the responsibilities of both bodies clearly defined. Both bodies were administering the law, and it seemed absurd that there should be any doubt as to the procedure necessary for the recovery of the rates. When the Council took the necessary steps to recover and failed, it was only reasonable that they should expect the assistance of the Lands Board.

The County Clerk was of opinion that the clause should be mandatory, and the County Chairman added that if the local body, who in most cases were thoroughly conversant with the position of defaulters, assured the Board that everv effort had been made and there was nothing to recover on, it should be sufficient. It was evidently a matter that wanted revision! The Clerk gave full particulars of the special case, and pointed out how it affected local loan conditions. Bankhart remarked that the Hi body had lost two years’ rates Board had received no rent, H»quently the district had had no Commissioner said he was of the case quoted, and he it was a mistake that the B had been given notice that SBBtion would be forfeited.' The was loaded with rates, and HHPrd had had great trouble BBrlcial bodies not carrying out shire of the work, but at any in a similar case, if the Council Bs satisled there was nothing to ■strain upon, he would cause his Bngers to make inquiries, and there Bed be no additional expense.