FIRE-SERVICE FEE ‘Owners Liable For Maintenance’

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 14

FIRE-SERVICE FEE ‘Owners Liable For Maintenance’

Owners of premises who were liable to pay a fireservice fee to the Christchurch City Council were also bound to pay the costs of maintenance of the connection, said the chairman of the Christchurch Metropolitan Fire Board (Mr N. G. Pickering) last evening.

He was commenting on a statement by the Deputy Mayor (Mr H. P. Smith), printed in “The Press” yesterday, who had said that the charges were based in part on the council’s responsibility to maintain the special water mains, and that if owners were prepared to accept the responsibility, the scale of charges could be reviewed. Mr Pickering, who is also a city councillor, said last evening that clause 2 of the council form of agreement in connection with the new

charges should be carefully examined. “The clause says: ‘The licensee, or extra party, shall, on demand, pay to the corporation the cost of, and incidental to, the laying, repairing, maintaining and renewing of the said service,’ ” said Mr Pickering.

“This clearly indicates that the onus is on the owner of the premises, and not the city

council, to pay the costs of maintenance of the service,” be said.

Mr Smith said last evening: “The whole thing is getting a bit silly.” “There is not much point in my having a newspaper debate with Mr Pickering on the meaning of the maintenance clause, which, in my opinion is inadequate; but if the users of the service are prepared to absolve *he council completely from all charges, there would be a strong case for at least a substantial reduction in the fees,” he said. “It surprises me that ‘The Press’ has failed to say that Mr Pickering having voted for this twice—once in committee and once in council—now finds It iniquitous,” said Mr Smith. The letter from the New Zealand Fire Service Council which suggested that the council was acting beyond its powers in charging the fee had no bearing on the issue, Mr Smith said. “I have not had time to consider the matter fully, but I do not agree that it affects the issue “The section of the Municipal Corporations Act quoted in the letter refers to charging for actual water. This has never been contemplated by the council,” he said.