Auckland campaigner Penny Bright knocks out Council?

The Auckland Super City Council certainly started with a puff and a roar, somewhat like a super fit champion going into a boxing bout. One thing I've learnt about boxing, or enduring fights is the first telling blow. The blow that might give confidence in the test of the opponent and how readily they may be hit. In the bout of Penny Bright against first the Auckland City Council, and its successor, The Super City Council, she has landed heavy blows against both as the fight continues on to their probable defeat.

From the recent hearing on the case in the Auckland District Court a clear picture emerges of the Council against Penny. She refuses to pay council rates because the Council, in her opinion, refuses to have open books on its spending. Thinking about that it may be strikingly clear that not paying for something not delivered is clearly a civil dispute, an allegation of breach of contract in fact. Nobody should pay for undelivered product or services that is the common view on which fair trading is anchored.

However, Auckland Super City wants to sell the house of Penny Bright in order to ensure services and accountabilty she says it has not been provided -  that is transparency of how it spends her money and that of all rate payers. District Court Judge Mary Beth Sharp refused Penny Bright's application to have the case sent onto the High Court saying that it could be decided in the District Court. Hardly a set back when considering that Judge Sharp said that the Council's inaccurate assessment of rates owed by Bright didn't give confidence in the integrity of the Debtors Judgement Ms Bright was appealing. In response Council chief financial officer said the errors with the bill were due to it being a complex case. So a staff of some 11,000 unable to work out the amount of one rates bill is because it is too complex - small wonder that would provide little confidence to over 200,000 other rate payers who recently faced rate increases.

Judge Mary Beth Sharp also disclosed the view that the 'imperative' for a rate payer to pay their rates did not 'crystallize' until the Council had fulfilled its obligations to rate payers. In other words kept it's part of the deal. A deal which Penny Bright says is not complete because Council has not disclosed all its spending as the Law requires. I hope it is revealed if it hasn't already been how much the Council have spent on pursuing the debt in this 'complex' case. Just as I hope the Court will rule on the 'crystallisation' of the Council's financial disclosure obligations sought by Penny Bright, perhaps with a substantial order of costs, including perhaps damages for the pressure placed on a single ratepayer who asked to know how her money, and that of all rate payers, is spent.

There will be many in the city with objections as to how Council spend rates (and increases debt) to know that one of their number, who has objected by refusing to pay her rates, is threatened with having her house sold.