ARC picks targets in war over rates

By WAYNE THOMPSON

The Auckland Regional Council is eyeing wealthier property owners as "test cases" in a bid to recover some of the $2 million of unpaid rates for 2003-2004.

The targets are people who owe more than $500 in rates and who do not have mortgages on the property and who have not contacted the council about their bills.

Such people should be sent a lawyer's letter demanding payment within seven days or else court action will be taken to recover the debt.

The council's rating special committee yesterday decided to recommend the full council adopt the proposal.

An officer's report said a letter of demand usually brought results. Once it was issued to some "test case" ratepayers, this sent a message that the council was serious about collection.

The council could not say how many property owners were in the test case category.

However, it said 40,369 rating bills remained unpaid out of 448,000.

The council had received almost $14 million either paid in full or from 50,000 bills partly paid.

About $2 million was outstanding.

The test case suggestion brought a swift and angry reaction from the Regional Ratepayers Rebellion group.

Glenfield Ratepayers chairman David Thornton called any selection a breach of natural justice and said it was clearly discrimination against a certain group of citizens.

He said it would catch many elderly people who had lived in their home for many years. The capital value would have risen substantially over those years, especially with the property boom.

"Many of these people are living on low fixed incomes and might be forced out of their homes if they cannot pay," said Mr Thornton.

He said he was horrified that he, as the spokesman for the rebellion campaign, would escape being a test case target while other less fortunate would not.

This was because he had a mortgage, owed less than $300 in rates and had contacted the council.

Yesterday, councillors were not unanimous about adopting the legal letter proposal.

It was to be sent to those who had ignored three reminder letters and had made no effort to contact the council with an explanation.

The lawyer's letter would be sent out after the final demands were issued.

ARC chairwoman Gwen Bull said she supported the proposal because there was a process for those who had contacted the council, either to discuss their bill or to make arrangements to pay it.

Ian Bradley said the council was not proposing anything different to what other councils did as a routine matter.

But Brian Smith said 40,000 people had signed the petition against the rates.

"They could complain that they had contacted us with the petition.

"We should treat all people evenly whether they have written to us or not."

Sandra Coney, who wants more flexible payment arrangements, said the proposal was premature when people were yet to receive a second of three reminders.

Mike Lee expressed concern about the costs of sending legal letters estimated at between $125 and $250 each.

Council officers have approved 8670 requests for remission of penalties, for example in cases of hardship.

The remissions total $176,634 in penalties on 2003-2004 rates.

Sports clubs and community groups have been granted remissions on 2003-2004 rates totalling $76,225.

Chasing rates

ARC options to recover unpaid rates:

* Sending a third and final demand.

* Sending a lawyer's letter of demand for rates over $500 to those who have no mortgage.

* Requesting payment from a property's first mortgagee.

* Starting court action for rates unpaid four months after due date.

* Enforcing a judgment by sale or lease of property.

* Exercising right of first call on proceeds of house sale.