Extracts from “The Return of the Carpetbaggers”
A History of Hawkes Bay Regional Council Leasehold Lands
by Denis Kelleher
They must also pay all the legal costs including those of the Council
for the correction of their documents although 95 Nelson Crescent had
theirs met (another resolution of the Council). All have been wrongly
charged rental and all should be refunded without further hassle, but
justice is out of reach of because of the huge cost of approaching the
Court and the Council know this. In my view, the decisions of the five
Councilors who opposed, the Resolution to make refunds to all Lessees were
both arrogant and stupid and they lost this Council its last chance to
retain any credibility whatever. To an onlooker the most bizarre part
of this is that each meeting commences with Councillors standing in prayer
calling on Almighty God to guide them in making just and honest decisions,
and within the hour they vote to deprive elderly people of their savings
by the device of wrongful valuations. It is my fervent hope that in the
future better disposed Councillors will be found and this blatant
discrimination corrected, but only after many of the elderly unit owners
have passed away carrying with them the contempt of these gentlemen with
the Carpetbagger minds. Full credit must be given here to Councillor Diana
Williams who after further study had the courage to reverse her previous
voting.
It was reported to the Councillors that there were 195 Lessees qualified
for refunds, but that there were 97 w-here 2 units occupied a Town Lot
who would not receive any reduction at all because they had not used the
full potential of the sites. In the Judgment of the Court of Appeal the
Judges noted "that this Council have a policy of not taking into account
any potential for further development when Lots have one residence
thereon".
Yet where a further one has been added then added potential
becomes a factor though it may now be quite difficult to achieve.
With the revaluation, exercise
completed,
an example has
arisen to illustrate how difficult it
becomes for
individual lessees.
When a Mr. Hilton decided to challenge the Council's valuation
method in 1992 he sought the assistance of registered valuers
Rawcliffe Plested & Penrose. Mr. Rawcliffe certified that
the land value of Lot
129; at
16-18 Guildford Street
(761 Sq metres) for leasehold renewal
was
$32,000
which
is
$42.50 per Sq metre.
He
supported
this value with
explanation
of method,
allowances for
irregular
shape,
frontage, easements
etc. This
was
contesting a Simkin Associates
valuation of
$38,000. They in turn used an adjacent property at 11
Salisbury Avenue of 758 Sq metres, as an example of a recent
1992 “acceptance” at $40,000 ($52.70 Sq m). The Arbitrator,
another registered valuer, ruled for a value of $34,000
($44.65 Sq m) for the Guildford Street Lot.
Also when
the
Regional Council
selected
the Plested
Lease of 93 Westminister Avenue as the "test case" for Court of
Appeal the 1992 land values assessed were: Simkin $54,000 by
divided method, Rawcliffe Associates by single Lot $36,000
($47.30 per Sq m). This valuation
was
not
contested
in
Court, and stands.
But now with Kawcliffe Plested & Penrose engaged as the valuers for the Regional
Council, they find that the 1992 land value of 16-18 Guildford Street is in fact
$36,900; and so this justifies a re-value of 11 Salisbury Avenue at $37,900 which
is $50 per Sq m.
I therefore took this matter up on behalf of the Lessees
at 11 Salisbury Avenue who had tentatively "accepted” in the
view that they could do nothing about it.
The Regional
Council referred my letter to the value’s Kawcliffe
Associates and I was advised to
contact
them. On doing so
I was informed "that this
new
exercise
had involved
other market
research which
revealed
that
a
land
value
for
16-18 Guildford
Street
was
in
fact $36,900,
and
that
by comparison
this
justified
the revaluation of 11 Salisbury Avenue
at
$37,900 and they declined to consider
any further adjustment.
The practical application of all this is that the Hilton
rental cannot be increased as it was
fixed at
arbitration, and the Plested rental cannot be altered
either as it was accepted by the Court.
But for the
Lessees of 11 Salisbury-Avenue there is a future of 19 years
rental based on a factor, of $50 per Sq m as against nearby
Guildford Street of $44.68 set by Arbitration, and a range
of somewhat better sites on adjacent Westminster Avenue of
equal size and overlooking a reserve at an average of $47.50
Sq m and accordingly lesser rentals (all 1992 assessments).
The LUSK REPORT to Parliament of April 1993 as the result of
a Ministerial Inquiry at Auckland concerning Glasgow Leases
gave examples of Court of Appeal judgments in which the Judges
had made the point that residential Lessees were in no
position to negotiate on a free basis as they were captive
by their need to protect their home from forfeiture.
The Report therefore recommends "That immediate action is needed
from the leasing authorities themselves to adopt a more human
face in their dealings with lessees, to be more open and
communicative with them and to listen to and respond to their
legitimate concerns".
P O S T S C R I P T . After a still further approach by me to the
Council, the valuers Rawcliffe, Plested & Penrose agreed to
reduce the valuation for 11-12 Salisbury Avenue from $37,900 to
$36,000 dating from 13 November 1992. ($47.50 sq.metre).
This reduces land rental by a further $47.50 per each unit
annually, and the issue of a greater refund than formerly.