OVERDUE RATES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 256, 10 August 1933, Page 5

OVERDUE RATES.

THE QUESTION OF RECOVERY. DECISION AGAINST COUNCIL. (Special to the "Guardian.") TIMARU, This Day. Delay beyond the period of three years in which a local body can obtain judgment for overdue rates cost the Mackenzie Council its right to recover the sums outstanding for the year 1930*31. The Council apparently acted in the belief that the 14 days' notice required to be given to ratepayers before they can be sued for the amounts was not included in the period of three years. This point was made by the Magistrate (Mr C. R. Orr Walker) at; a sitting of the Court at Fairlie on. Monday, when the Mackenzie County Council proceeded against two ratepayers for overdue rates for 1930-31. The Magistrate gave judgment for defendants. The Magistrate said the question involved was whether judgment could then be entered or whether it was then too late to do so. Section 77 of the Rating Act, ho said, provided that no judgment for rates due could be entered after three years from the date when these rates first became due. There was also provided (Section 65) that before a person liable could be sued for rates due, 14 days' notice had tb be given to him of the particulars of the rates. In the cases in question the. rates were struck on July 7, 1930, and made payable on August .1, 1930. Notice under Section 65 was posted on July 31, 1930, and received by the ratepayers on August 1. The rate, therefore, could not be sued for until August 15. The Magistrate held that the rate became due within the meaning of Section 77 on August 1, and that the three years commenced to a-un from that date, and that, therefore, judgment had to be entered not later than August 1, 1933. The rate had to be "due" before the rate demand could bo made. The Council's contention that the word "clue" in Section, 77 meant) "recoverable" could not be accepted. Costs were allowed the defendants.