HALF RATES REFUNDED.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20314, 13 August 1931, Page 8

HALF RATES REFUNDED.

OWNERS OF VACANT DWELLINGS. COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF j RATING ACT. i i , If a ratepayer having an empty section erects on it any building which may legally be called a dwelling, and if that building remains unoccupied for six months in the year, he is entitled to a refund of one-half of his rates, under whatever system they may be levied. Such is the effect of the interpretation placed upon Section 09 of the Rating Act (192.3) by tho Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and, in a recent Wellington case, by a Magistrate (Mr E. Page). Local bodies are naturally opposed to any such interpretation of tho Act, for it enables ratepayers very simply to escape their responsibility for rates on unoccupied sections and at tho same time reduces the security for loans. Several cases have recently come before the Christchurch City Council; and an attempt is to be made by this and other Councils, through the Municipal Association, to secure amending legislation. The Eating Act. Section CD of the Rating Act (1925) states:—■ "In every case where—"(a) Any dwclling-houH or other building remains actually vacant and unoccupied for a period of not less than six months in any rating year, whether continuously or not; and "(b) Tho person rated in respect thereof gives to the local authority, within 14 days after the expiration of such period, notice in writing of the dates on which such house or building became vacant and unoccupied, and on which it again became occupied, . . . "... then such person shall be liable to pay only half the amount which would otherwise be payable for tho year's rates in respect of such dwell-ing-liouse or other building, and shall ( bo entitled to a refund of whatever sum ho may liave paid in excess ol such half.'' City Council's Contention. It has been the contention of the Christchurch City Council that tho value of the buildings is tho only value to be considered under the Act, since it is these improvements alone which are, or arc not, occupied. Accordingly, if any ratopayer lias given the notice required by the Act, the Council has halved only tho rates assessed on the value of the buildings, or improvements. The unimproved value rates are untouched, for it-is this value (tlio Council maintain) which is security for loans borrowed. If the rates levied on unimproved values are reduced for some ratepayers, then others ultimately have to pay a higher rate in order to meet interest and sinking fund charges. The contention that "such dwellinghouse or other building" in the Act refers literally to actual improvements was disproved by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), giving judgment against tho Northcotc County Council in a case last year. He said: "Reading the words 'such dwellinghouse or other building,' as we think they must read, as meaning the land and the dwellinghouse, or, what is the same thing, the dwellinghouse- or building and tho land within its curtilage, the basis or system upon whieli the proj»3rty is rated seems to us to be quite immaterial." Magistrate's Billing. A similar judgment was delivered against tho Eastbourne Borough Council last week by Mr E. Page, S.M. Under Section 69 of the Rating Act, said Mr Page, it was provided that where any dwellinghouse or other building remained actually vacant and unoccupied for not less than six months in any rating year and tho owner gave notice to the local authority, he would be liable to pay only one-half of the amount of the year's rates. The plaintiff had a property at Eastbourne which for more than six months in the rating years ended March 31st, 19.10, and March 31st, 1931, was unoccupied. Ho gave notice in each year, claiming the allowance provided for. The Council contended, however, that tho section of the Act did not apply to his case, and insisted on tho full payment of the rates. It took two grounds in answer to the claim, the first being that the Act did not apply where rating was on unimproved value, and the second that tho buildings were of such a nature that they did not come within the scope of the Act. Mr Page declared that the section of the Act applied under any system of rating; and that tho buildings concerned, though the smaller one was a dwelling with a shop attached, also came within the section. "According to these judgments, the position is that if a man builds a whare on a section, we have to refund him half the rates," stated an official of_ the City Council yesterday. He maintained that tho interpretation of the Act was particularly unfair to local bodies and to the ratepayers themselves, since the security for loans would be materially reduced and other would have to make up the deficiency in payments. i ~ '