Uncategorized

Private security Personnel Licensing authority – Ultra Vires?

Roger GillThe private security personnel licensing authority is a statutory body which   controls all  Investigator and  security guard licenses

I have raised the issue of the authority not being  qualified   and have requested an  OIA  to establish the legal basis on which the authority claims to legitimately hold office  no response has been received and it now appears that ” the authority ” is away on leave

The legislation states http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0115/latest/DLM1594620.html

No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing

I Checked the roll of lawyers and could not see Mr Gill’s name on it so I wrote  to the law society and got the response that  he had not had a practicing certificate since 30 June 2015

From: Registry Mailbox [mailto:registry@lawsociety.org.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:35 a.m.
To: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Subject: RE: registration of barrister

Dear Grace

Mr Roger Bernard William GILL does not hold a current practising certificate.

His last certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society expired on 30 June 2015.

Kind regards
REGISTRY ADMINISTRATOR

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | DD: +64 4 463 2919 | PH: 0800 22 30 30 | F: +64 4 463 2989

lawsociety.org.nz

26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
DX SP20202 | PO Box 5041, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

 

I again consulted legislation

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM364948.html

barrister means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under or by virtue of this Act and practising as a barrister, whether or not he or she also practises as a solicitor; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by barristers in New Zealand

solicitor means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under, or by virtue of, this Act and practising as a solicitor, whether or not he or she also practises as a barrister; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by solicitors in New Zealand

lawyer means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor

 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365726.html

 

21 Provision of legal services

(1)A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—

(a)provides legal services in New Zealand; and

(b)describes himself, herself, or itself as—

(i)a lawyer; or

(ii)a law practitioner; or

(iii)a legal practitioner; or

(iv)a barrister; or

(v)a solicitor; or

(vi)a barrister and solicitor; or

(vii)an attorney-at-law; or

(viii)counsel.

From the Law society web site

http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/new-zealand-law-society-guide-for-new-lawyers/becoming-a-lawyer

Who is a “lawyer”?

 A lawyer is a person who holds a current practising certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society. Lawyers practise either as a barrister and solicitor or as a barrister (sometimes called a “barrister sole”).

Anyone providing certain legal services who describes themselves as a “lawyer”, a “barrister”, or a “barrister and solicitor” but who doesn’t hold a current practising certificate commits an offence against the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the LCA”).

If you have been admitted as a barrister and solicitor but do not hold a current practising certificate, you may refer to yourself as an “enrolled barrister and solicitor of the High Court”.

Going back to the definition in the pspla  act

No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing.

Since Mr Gill is not a lawyer  he is not a barrister   he has no statutory obligations to the rule of law  and is also  not an officer of the court ,  statute states that he is to be a barrister or solicitor. so  what  implications does this have on  the enforcement of the Private security personnel licensing act ?

can some one  without  the legal standing to be the authority make decisions on the suitability of   Security guards and Private investigators suitability  to hold their  jobs ?

Are the  decisions Roger Gill  has made since  30  June 2015 a ultra vires ? and therefore void ?

Will we re write legislation to  cover this glaring  non compliance with statute ?

I Raised the issue with the ministers. I now note that Mr Gill is away until the end of the month.  strange that when so many  licences come up for renewal in August .

His deputy  Stevan Cole was  the deputy  he has since become a community magistrate   it would appear that no one has been appointed as deputy  therefore   it seems like there is no Legal “authority”

 

How the Authority is chosen

The Authority is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister of Justice. They must have at least 5 years’ experience as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court. Appointments to the position are for a term of 3 years, and a person may be reappointed.

The current Authority is Mr Roger Gill. source  ( note how the justice dept  gets their definition wrong  the operative word IS  is missing  )

 

Mr Gill is a qualified lawyer and has 16 years experience as a Chief Executive of four national organisations, including the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Stock Exchange. For the past 12 years Mr Gill was a Registrar and Manager of the Wellington High Court.

.  source 

 

Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.  source

more info on Roger Gill  

Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.

Ultra Vires   Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law.

New Zealand Trusts and Companies .. our unsafe system hits a new low.

The reason that our company and trust structure is  so well liked  is  because  THERE IS NO DUE DILIGENCE DONE BY THE  REGISTRARS OF  NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES  AND  TRUSTS ARE NOT  RECORDED.

ADDITIONALLY

Few realize that  our trust and company structure is actually most abused through lawyers who in turn are  protected by  our courts .

I am a whistle blower on  the corrupt use of trusts , I   thought that in this country which at the time prided itself to be the least corrupt  that I could say   ” hey guess what  the law enforcement agency  The animal welfare institute of New Zealand  does not  exist at all ”  what happened? lawyers got together   sued me for  a ridiculous sum  tried to bankrupt me  and  tried to put my company out of business. they were protected by their own society   and the judges who were once members of that very society.

I have come to realize that the biggest gang in town  are the lawyers.    Its like complaining about  a gang  member and then being told to speak to the gang  leaders if   you feel there is a problem   . If it is some one they want to dispose of  it will be useful to them  but if the person is in the ” in crowd ” and their activities make the gang look bad  then there is a huge cover up.  I have even had instances where he judges  have gone  way out on a limb to  silence the entire matter  one of those instances was  with regards to a well published Russian lawyer  who was up  to his neck in  trust companies  such as those refereed to in the panama papers.

Just recently I assisted a young man who had had all of his  shares fraudulently transferred from him and  into the name of his business partner the minority share holder .Effectively  he had his business stolen from him . We managed to get a lawyer  appointed for the company who was taking instructions from the very person who  was involved in the theft of the shares.  I told the lawyer for the company that he had a duty to be independent  ie act for the company and  to act according to  the rules and could not condone the   illegal activities of the company.  The result  :-the lawyer  made false complaint  alleging  that I was in contempt of court and had committed  blackmail  when I  wrote to him and pointed out this section of the law  I was promptly taken to court for harassment In Wellington when I lived in Auckland . The date of the hearing was conveniently left off the papers I was served  and the evidence  is such that I am convinced that the court, the registrars and the lawyers  all  conspire together to   ensure that lawyers make a healthy living and no one dares question their activities.

As a result I now have a legal bill.. yes their fees   of over $6,000  . I have a solution  I will be  selling  an e book exposing their tactics of winning  and every cent that I raise will go settling this ” debt”  if there is interest  I will simply sell more copies . I suspect that   with the  publication of the panama papers this  e book  could be quite popular as the  companies  legislation abuse and the manner  in which some  law firms condone  unlawful transactions  is central to makign the company structure in NZ a mockery

New Zealand is far more corrupt than you  can imagine.

any one wishing to  receive a copy of the  e book    can pre order shortly

 

 

 

 

 

MOSSACK FONSECA the New Zealand connection

Hot off the press  we have  an article in the herald

Panama Papers: The celebrities, royals and world leaders exposed by tax leak

the story comes from  the  international consortium of investigative   journalists

they publish a video  as below

You will note that the video mentions “MOSSACK FONSECA”

New Zealand  appears to have its very own branch of this company   see here

the share holder of this company is 

BENTLEYS NZ TRUSTEE LIMITED  BENTLEYS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, Level 13 Dla Piper Tower, 205 Queen Street, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand. the ultimate owners of this 2014  trust company are its two directors
Nicolaas James DEN HEIJER
3 Centaur Close, Albany, Auckland, 0632 , New Zealand
Roger John THOMPSON
260 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
they were directors in Staples Rodway   but resigned on 8 august 2014 the  date  when Bentley was set up and became  share holder in the following companies

There are 101 companies registered to the address of  Bentley accountants see here   many appear to be trust companies  held on behalf of  foreigners.

among those   is the Orion Trust (New Zealand) Limited.  which is mentioned in this article  by Naked capitalism Mossack Fonseca: The New Zealand Connection

The Benley group of companies is not the only group involved in international trusts    the journalists at naked capitalism identified NZ’s role in UnaEnergy Trustees Limited

Naked Capatalism raised the point that

New Zealand-based “foreign trusts” have been actively marketed overseas for benefits including their exemption from New Zealand tax on foreign sourced income, minimal compliance and reporting requirements, and no requirement for public disclosure of the beneficial owners.

As Transparency NZ has noted the  apparent lack of  requirement to comply with he companies act must also be a benefit  s illustrated  with the Muse on Allen Saga

more on Mossack Fonseca

Tax havens explained

Giant leak exposes global array of crime, corruption        https://panamapapers.icij.org/

Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?

muse eateryMuse Restaurant  also known as Muse on  Allen is about to morph  into an alter ego  Muse eatery & Bar

The transition is  mainly due to the fact that the  shareholding  in Muse on Allen Limited  was unlawfully obtained by Samuel North  by simply accessing the the company register and transferring the shares to himself   and again here  the law is quite specific about this  process but  Samuel simply ignored the law  and  used a computer to  unlawfully transfer  the shares.

Samuel is quite  aware of what he has  done ,  there have been many admissions including repeatedly telling the court that   the shares were transferred  “in error’  despite the claim of ” error ” nothing has been done  to  correct  it in 3 years and the  accounts continue to show that  Samuel has no equity in the company  despite claiming to be the majority share holder

Muse eatery is now trying to get   a liquor licence for the new premises at 56 VICTORIA STREET.  the web site has been  linked to the new domain name museeatery.co.nz which opens to the   url http://museonallen.co.nz/.

The content of the web site is that of Muse on Allen  and the content is the same  Muse Eatery media.

Concrete evidence that  the new company  catering Limited has adopted the name Muse eatery  is in the application for liquor licence Alcohol Application – Muse Restaurant, Ground Floor, 56 Victoria Street, Wellington Central  which a number of persons have opposed .

so between the names Muse restaurant  and  Muse eatery the  public are being asked to accept the new restaurant as a continuation of the old  while Samuel North uses up the  money from the sale to ensure that the   person who put all his money  in the restaurant   is left totally out of  pocket .

we can only appeal to the public that if they believe in fairness and honesty then they should  give Muse Restaurant, Muse eatery& bar    or what ever it is called this week , a wide berth .

 

open letter to Malcom and Samuel North

Thank you for your letter Malcolm  alleging that  I  have been defaming you  . I am communicating with you through this site as I  have previously advised you that you are harassing and bullying us and that my only communication with you will be in an open transparent forum.  I had no desire to communicate with you  but your barrage of insulting   emails  and below the belt   communications leave this as the only viable option. it is quite clear that you are ignoring the police  warning email to muse restaurant 171115

Your dear son  let it slip that he had been  communicating with Neil Wells  who  years ago won a defamation case against  me by having my defence of truth and honest opinions struck out  when he ensured that so much shit was going down in my life that my marriage  fell to bits and my family was torn apart. I was unable to come up with a payment of 19,000  due to  the bank accounts being  frozen for the divorce .  Dirty tactics  and desperation run deep

Neil had a secret  one which I had stumbled on  and I had to be silenced at all costs.    He had  written legislation for his own business plan   and as ” independent adviser to the select committee he ensured that  this legislation became law.

He then made a fraudulent application under the act to the minister , falsely  stating that  AWINZ was a trust when the reality is that no such trust existed and AWINZ was in reality    a nothing .   ( it is fraud to make a false statement which people then act upon..  this is fact )

AWINZ became a law enforcement authority, because no one checked   that it existed , it  had  powers that equaled those of the RNZSPCA  search seizure .

Neil Wells used the staff at Waitakere city as AWINZ  animal welfare officers  and as their council boss he wore two hats and made them prioritize animal welfare over their council paid  duties.He rebranded the council premises so that no one knew  where AWINZ began and council  finished  all in all AWINZ appeared to exist  the reality it was funded through the public purse for private pecuniary gain. ( evidence is on this site and  on anticorruption.co.nz )

If an animal welfare prosecution eventuated Neil Wells performed in  his capacity as barrister  and  would offer diversion for a donation to the “charity”AWINZ   which  in reality did not exist other than the bank account which he had opened and was the sole operator of.

that was my  first experience of  civil litigation  ,Neil has  ensured that it would not  be my last and has been  stirring up any one  who I mention  on this site .

I was taken to court  last year by the lawyers who represented Muse on Allen .  Documents were filed which  claimed that Jozsefs share holding had been removed in error .   The lawyer  representing he company did not like me telling him  that if it was an error then  the error should be corrected. I pointed out that  when  new  annual reports are filed in the companies office  then  the error appears not to be an error.   there have  now been three  annual returns filed since  Jozsefs share holdings were claimed to have been  transferred in error .

The lawyer  also did not like me telling him that he  had a legal duty to act independently for his client which is the company and that  the company is a separate legal entity from the directors  who by all accounts had allowed Jozsefs shares to be transferred illegally

so the lawyers took me to court for  harassment  this is after having  falsely accused me of contempt of court and blackmail . Apparently it is harassment to tell a lawyer that he should not be going round making false allegations  and that  he has a duty to be independent and act according to the rule of law.

when the lawyer  made a song and dance about the unusualness of his name  I contacted his father who I had served with in the Police, I  stupidly thought that by speaking to the lawyers father   who I had known very well  I might be able to put an end to this madness   but instead every  innocent act  gets turned into something sinister and I am made out to be a beast

Documents were withheld from me including  the court hearing date .  When the papers were served there was an initial  court  date    given as usual . the matter was was set down for hearing and I thought it strange that  I had not been advised of the date but this often happens near the end of the year.   I  discovered the true date after a bit of game play by the lawyers  and  at 9 am on the morning of the hearing I was told  that I had to appear at 10.  slight problem the hearing was in Wellington and I live in Auckland .

I was later to find out that there were other documents  which the court had been given and  which had  conveniently not been  served on me. These documents were submissions which alleged  defamation of the lawyer .

So without  any  legal  defamation process  and without any right  to  defend myself or even  knowing that I had been accused of defamation, I became a serial defamer and harasser seething  which Malcolm North now uses to spout on about  to  defame me .  In the mean time his son  who has claimed the restaurant as his own  but has no equity in the place  slings below the belt   emails at me at christmas time telling me that I am hated  and  alleging that my former husband and children   are  among  those and that I don’t have any family to enjoy christmas with   .  I know this not to be true   and I resent   a kid younger than my children  bullying me in such a manner.

It turns out that Neil Wells has been in the back ground  following my every move and prompting every one   I have contact with to  make such allegations.  The same happened with my former lawyer   who was stuck off last year.  the court stepped in   and with a confidentiality clause  all was dealt with minute Judge Sargisson.

Neil Wells was also on the scene when I conducted an investigation into Fresh prepared  and he ensured that harassment proceeding were also commenced in that  matter.  The fact that one person Terry Hay had never seen me or been  contacted by me was beside the point . Mr Terry Hay was later charged with 22 counts of fraud  but skipped the country and  paid his way  out of a conviction

I’m getting a little bit over  this  use of he court by criminals  to  attack those  who have no ability to get the government to act on criminal matters. In this case the Registrar of companies  appears to do nothing to  control the use of  companies  and the police  are too busy reducing the road toll but driving more people to  suicide .

Malcolm and  Sam are no exception   we have had repeated admissions from them of their  crime

“Thanks for letting us know we have got away with theft fraud and a raft of companies act offences that is very reassuring “

malcolm North thank you for letting us know that we have got away

 

Malcolm has stated openly  that the police are not going to arrest them  , he is grossly derogatory and totally gets his facts wrong   as usual   which   his bosses at the MSD  don’t appear to mind .  But   Attack is the best form of defence   and  attack is the only defence these people have

malcolm North no arrest

yet on the other hand  he expresses in an email that he does not wish to spend the next christmas behind bars  due to my fraud complaint and would  like to negotiate a  settlement  with Jozsef. An innocent person would not   have  those worries

malcolm North prison

So far the settlement offers have been a total insult.   Is this the way of the future  a criminal rips you off  breaks a raft of laws then   says   hey  I will give  you  two and tuppence halfpenny  so that it can all go away .

Malcolm has asked me to publish the following

malcolm North

I have  amended the   publication he has complained of accordingly but  the other statement was made to the  link broker who is selling the business  Buy a Restaurant & Bar-too Good Opportunity To Miss For Sale, business for sale Wellington, New Zealand . We stand by our statements  they are true  and will defend   the truth . the police fraud file    is  151010/8943

Malcolm    could you please clarify  how you can take action against  Jozsef for being a 63.2% share holder    yet not  consult him  in the sale of the business  your own accounts show that he is the only person with equity in the business see here . Samuel  who unlawfully  transferred  all of Jozsefs shares to himself  acted with the consent  of the other directors  of which   you are one. You are all in it together .  

shae holder accounts

Malcolm I will send a copy of this    to the   business broker to clarify the statements which you mistakenly think are defamatory

Happy to respond  again to any further  emails  through this forum

Update

 

Update continuing  bullying and harassment   

it would appear that Malcolm is incapable of seeing  the  alterations made despite the fact that they are highlighted

the  latest abuse   from these  bullies  and an admission that Neil Wells is behind it all

will soon put up a post  with Trevor Morely  who asked them not to  divulge that they had contact him   if they are on about laughs  I can provide some good ones. when  some one calls some one a name  it usually means they are looking in a mirror .We are just after justice and   did not subscribe to this on going crap .

malcolm reply samuel malcolm reply 2

the claw machine scam

Fraud

Submissions to Auckland Council

Delegation, calculation of penalties and applying penalties to Rates  A dogs Breakfast

By Grace Haden

I ask for these notes and the attachments to be appended to the minutes.

I have been assisting Penny Bright in making sense of her rates demand, this has given me cause to look at the processes involved and the manner in which the penalty regime has been approached. In doing so I have noted a number of issues which require resolution.

Delegation
Serious issues arise with the delegation of the powers under the Rating act

The annual plan in 2013 & 14 both state

Delegation of decision-making
Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.

The legislation Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 however states

132 Delegation
(1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—
(a) its chief executive officer; or
(b) any other specified officer of the local authority.
(2) A local authority must not delegate—
(a) the power to delegate; or
(b) a function, power, or duty conferred by subpart 2 of Part 1 or subpart 1 of Part 5.

The question therefore is who ultimately has the delegated powers and who can lawfully make decisions with regards to the rates and consequently the penalty regime.

It is important to resolve the matter of delegation before we consider whether or not rating polices are legal

Applying penalties to Rates

The sequence of events is also crucial
1. The person who holds the delegated powers or powers has to be identified.

a. I have been unsuccessful in getting this information Mr Town responded this morning Rates and their setting is not delegated but is adopted by the Governing Body as required by law. Therefore no staff member has this delegation. However, delegations for different parts of the implementation of the rating system rest with different staff members depending on what is required.

b. It appears to me that what we have in the annual report and what is required by law is not expressed clearly also the act makes it clear that responsibilities can be delegated to A specified officer not “different staff members depending on what is required”

2. A resolution must be made to authorise penalties to be added to rates no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year, It follows logically that this resolution must be available to be produced and one would think in this day an age available for public inspection on the internet. And

a. It has to stipulate how the penalty is calculated
b. the date that the penalty is to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates
c. and must not exceed 10% of the unpaid rates.

3. Section 58 sets out the various types of penalties which the council can impose and it would follow that these are the only penalties which can be imposed .

4. This penalty regime MUST be conveyed in the assessment notice.  see  assessment notice 

There is much confusion as to who really holds the responsibilities as to setting the penalty regime and there is also confusion as to the regime itself.

The annual plans all state: The council must use the special consultative procedure set out in the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt and amend the rates related policies.

The act on the other hand is specific in that it states that the policy must be set “By resolution no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year “

This implies that this policy must be set or adopted by resolution annually

In the annual plan 2013-2014  states

The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2013/2014 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

and 2014-2015

The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.

The words applied to do not necessarily mean that the penalty will become part of the rates and incorporated into the rates. The wording is not specific as to how the rates and penalties are calculated.

Further :The act requires the invoices to show the amount of the penalty on any unpaid rates for the rating unit and the amount of any unpaid rates owing from a previous financial year for the rating unit. The connotation is therefore that the rates and the penalties are two separate amounts and not one.

This brings about the question of whether or not penalties can be applied to penalties, if there is no resolution that penalties are added to the previous year’s rates then the next lot of penalties applied can only be applied to rates and not rates plus penalties.

The next issue which arises is the rates due for the financial year.
The invoices tates Total rates payable for 2014-2015.

Unless the resolutions to set dates for instalments can be shown to have been made legally and with the proper consultation they cannot be enforced.

The invoice shows the sum due for the year but nowhere on the invoice is there a date by which that sum is due .

There an ability to pay a reduced sum in one payment and getting a hefty 1.1% discount if the payment is made by the first instalment date, the other options available are to be penalised or to pay instalments.

Every one paying their rates on time effectively pays a full month prior to the end of the financial year. Nowhere does it state that the full rates are due by that date.

Penalties are not equal

People living in higher priced areas pay higher penalties as can be seen by the two different invoices I have produced. The penalty for late payment in Epsom is $112.70 per quarter and In Kingsland $58.10 per quarter. This is significant and a flat penalty fee should be considered due to the ever increasing property prices.
calculation of penalties
Unlawful penalties
The act allows penalties of up to 10% of the rates to be added, it does not say per annum and this allows the council to continually add 10% the rates at 6 monthly intervals if an amount is a year old. This is in excess 20% and makes loan sharks look good.

While 10 % is legal the e reality is that a penalty in excess of 10% is added.

10 % is being added to the GST inclusive price, this price is already 15% more than the set rate.

While council through legally set penalty regimes can charge up to 10% penalty on rates they have no legal ability to charge 10% penalty on GST.

This also raises the question of the GST which the council then declares to IRD as having been received but that is a matter for you.

Taking Penny’s rate bill for example the rates instalment is $581 of which $75.78 is GST by charging 10% on the GST inclusive sum a further $7.57 of unlawful penalties is charged per quitter.

In the Epsom example the sum is an extra $14.70 per quarter
It would appear that the rates are a dogs breakfast , they are hap hazard and not done according to the legislative requirements.

While Council appear to ignore the law which they have to comply with, they enforce penalties which have been imposed without any legal basis and against the rule of law.

Council is required to act according to section 14 Of the local government act
a) a local authority should—
• (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;

I have not even been able to get questions answered let alone find relevant documents on the council web sites which would enable me to follow the tail of consultation, delegation, resolutions and implementation.

If this is what happens in the process of collecting rates, then we really do have to wonder about the process of spending them.

I have personal experience of seeing the council allow council officers use council resources infrastructure for self-enrichment. There is a deliberate turning of a blind eye to his while rate payers are seen as a bottomless pit of revenue. Questioning this has cost me  more than $300,000   . we have persons in council on wages of $600,000 per year  what are they being paid for.  I would hope   it is to get this kind of thing  right.

This will also be posted on www.Transparency.net.nz

Grace Haden

Council rates- Is the council delegating authority legally – part 4.

In this  the  final instalment of the Auckland council rates investigation we explore  delegation.

The  Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 states

132 Delegation
  • (1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—

    • (a) its chief executive officer; or

    • (b) any other specified officer of the local authority.

    (2) A local authority must not delegate

    • (a) the power to delegate; or

Now lets look at the annual  plan again, it states

Delegation of decision-making

Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.

The question  we  need to explorer here is whether  “council officers.”   is   the same as specified as required by the act.  .

There appears to be no definition for Council officer  in any  legislation

Is the lady on the  front desk  there is a receptionist, she is a council officer  , the guy  who overseas the council car park  he is a council officer , I guess you could say that any council employee is a council officer.

Further the annual plan states  that it is  “Decisions relating to applying the rate”  that is delegated to “Council officers ” but the act is specific that   Council cannot delegate the power to delegate  . So without a specific person  being handed the responsibility  the  delegation is  left  rather wide open . There is only one thing for certain and that is that the responsibility still rests with the governing body .

The slack  wording of the annual   plan   and the lack of specificness brings about  the question whether or not the  penalty regime set  by council is even legal in the remotest sense.

But wait there is more

The rates assessment is  sent out at the  beginning of the financial year and  is a document  which is  produced to comply with section sets out the  details as required by legislation , in this case section 45

So we have gone back to the rates assessment notice  that we have before us   and start ticking off the requirements as set out by the legislation.

Item

(k) the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year:

we have already seen that  the total amount payable is  $4510.81 .

But if the payment is  made by instalments and each instalment is one day late  then  the  amount paid by the end of the financial  year  ( paid up  by 28 May 2015  when due date is 30 June  2015 )  will be  $4961.61  , an extra $450.81  under the councils  penalty scheme which is not supported by legislation .

On top of that   the $450.81  includes   a total of $58.80 penalties on GST

(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:

There is nothing on  our notice which  refers to this at all .

(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:

There is nothing on the rates assessment notice which states when the rates must be paid by , the  installment dates are given but there is no indication that  the payments must be made by those dates  it simply states ” amount payable by “.

(n) if applicable,—

(i) the penalty regime of the local authority; and

(ii) a warning that, if rates are not paid on time, a penalty may be added under that regime:

There is nothing on the rates assessment notice with regards  to penalty regimes   and there are no warnings with regards to failing to pay by any due date .

(o) if an early payment of rates has been made in accordance with a policy adopted under section 56(1),—

(i) the rates paid and any balance remaining to be paid; and

(ii) the amount of any discount allowed for the early payment of the rates; and

(iii) any credit balance remaining after payment of all rates due, adjusted for any discount allowed:

None of the above are shown on the rates assessment notice  .

(p) the right of ratepayers to—

(i) inspect the rating information database and rates records; and

(ii) object to any of the information included in the rating information database and rates records.

There is no mention  of these details either .

The Rates assessment notice  which we have before us  does not comply with the legislation Contents of rates assessment.

Perhaps the  council should  tidy up its act with regard to rates

  1. Have penalties which are fair and reasonable  based on the   ever increasing value  and ever  rising rates   of our homes
  2. Have a rates penalty regime which makes sense and  can be interpreted in the same way by every one reading it.
  3. Apply   Penalties legally and only to the portions  which   penalties can legally be applied to
  4. Live by the law which  council so strictly imposes on the rate Payers.

I would  like  to Acknowledge Penny Bright  . It is because we looked at  the rates bill she had that  these issues have been raised.    Her  penalty bill is now  significantly larger than   her   rates demands . While Auckland council wants to sell her house for effectively $13,000  in   arrears rates and more than  $20,000  in penalties.

Auckland council the time to be open and transparent with your rates  penalty regime is now.