Dear Wellington City Council,

This request for information aims to clear up some confusion about an ongoing case. It started when the rates computer system stopped sending rate documents for account 1833747, valuation #17270-45801-BC. Interestingly, only this account was affected; another account with the same contact details (property owner, address, email) was not.

The writer has faced several issues due to not receiving rate documents and tax invoices needed for IRD documentation and paying rates. It has taken till February 2022, over a year, to fix the council’s computer glitch and to email copies to missing rates documents. In 2021 the writer made three lump-sum payments in good faith and escalated the unacceptable situation by filed an online complaint, #SR-289187. To date, the case is still unresolved, which is why the information requested below.

[1] The writer would like to see WCC’s transaction records for Account 1833774 from 30/11/2020 to 1/03/2022.

[2] Additionally, the writer wants to get:
• A list of the council’s internal activities taken to fix the reported problems, including WCC’s standard operational timeframes and adherence to statutory requirements.
• Copies of related communications, such as internal emails and memos, to show how the council has managed this issue according to best practices and fulfilled its obligations.
• Information on the council's standard procedures for responding to complaint #SR-289187 submitted through the online portal, including expected response times.
• An explanation for why no response to the case provided has been received before July 2024 despite multiple reminders.

[3] This case was escalated for the second time in May 2022 when the writer objected to penalty claims made by the council for an issue (see [1]) that the council initiated itself. This dispute is still ongoing, and to conclude it, the writer wants to see:
• Records of any actions taken or decisions made regarding this case, and the steps the council has taken to resolve the dispute from May 2022 to July 2024.
• Any notes, memos, or other internal documents discussing how this case was handled.
• Proof that WCC’s actions met the statutory requirements of the Rates and Goods & Services Act
(for instance council’s failures to present “requested” copies of tax invoices, and finally posting them after due-date).
• Copies of all communications sent to the writer between May 2022 and May 2024.

Please note that a copy of the recent email received on 8 July 2024, signed by Michael Nyamudeza, is excluded, because he didn’t contribute to any of these questions above. If he is not the usual person handling these requests, please forward this email to the appropriate person.

If you need any clarification or have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully,
Klaus Schliebe

Dear BUS: Official Information,

Kia ora Laura

Thank you for your response dated 10 September 2024, which provided the requested information. The Council's reply was helpful, as it included the transactions record for account 1833747 from 30 November 2020 to 1 March 2022.

The presented data aligns with the Writer's bank statements, showing four voluntary lump-sum payments made without having seen the installment invoices. This explains the negative account balance by December 2021.

As a result of IRC-2936, the Council finally emailed the requested tax invoices for the given time frame on 22/02/2022. The outstanding amount, based on these tax invoices, was paid promptly the following day, 23/02/2022, with the exception of the listed penalty charges.

The penalty charges remain in dispute. The Council's administration took more than a year to present the requested invoice copies under the Goods and Services Act. It is questionable why the rates payer should accept penalties for the supplier's failure to respond timely and comply within the required 28-day timeframe. The Writer is currently unavailable to summarize his position but will provide details no later than the end of September 2024.

Yours sincerely,

Klaus Schliebe

Dear BUS: Official Information,

Tēnā koe Laura,

Thank you for your efforts in aligning the Council’s position with the documented steps regarding the unresolved issues. It is acknowledged that the Writer took all reasonable steps at the time by requesting the Council to fulfill its obligations.

Step 1 concluded when, in response to IRC-2936, the Council issued the requested installment bills on 22/02/2022. The ratepayer promptly settled the account balance, except for the disputed penalty charges.

Step 2 began with the objection raised on 25/05/2022 regarding the unfair penalty claims, communicated via email. This was due to the Council's responsibility to issue tax invoices for rates installments and provide the missing bills. However, the Rates Team failed to respond or acknowledge the communication. The only option left was to initiate IRC-4396 and IRC-5309, with the sole purpose of seeking clarity on the Council’s operations. Escalating the matter to the Chief Executive’s office did not yield any results, and the issues remain unresolved.

Step 3: Despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter, the Council’s lack of communication has complicated the situation. Multiple follow-ups, including IRC-4396 and IRC-5309, were initiated to obtain clarity and transparency on the Council's process. These actions were taken after previous attempts to address the outstanding penalty charges, as well as the Council’s failure to provide the necessary documentation, remained unresolved.

To date, no meaningful response has been provided by the Council, and the key issues remain open. It is now imperative that the Council either substantiates the penalty charges with appropriate documentation or waives them, considering the failure to properly engage in the process thus far.

To your Summary of IRC-6831

The nature of your response does not address the core issues or provide factual evidence to resolve them. Instead, it extends the Council’s longstanding approach, which has relied on process without producing tangible solutions.
From my perspective, the Council's automated system sends rates installment bills, payment reminders (regardless of whether the data is accurate), and automated email responses ("we will aim to respond to urgent queries within eight (8) working days, and non-urgent within twenty (20) working days"). However, the actual outcomes are lacking.

Specific Issues:

[1] Appendix One: The appendix you presented is a summary of documents, most of which were initiated by me. However, it is confusing in terms of what you intend to demonstrate. Five documents refer to an entirely different account and are irrelevant to this matter. Document 13 cannot be found and seems to duplicate Document 08. There are also several other technical inconsistencies that need clarification.

[2] Customer Support: The key issue, as highlighted by Document 01, is the Council's failure to provide responsive customer support, which has led to all related problems. The status report for SR-289187 clearly illustrates this, as it shows the priority as "low" and the status as "closed," despite the fact that no response was provided to my complaint. This is factual evidence that the Council was in default in handling the matter.

[3] Rates Team Performance: The Rates Team has not fulfilled its responsibilities. They failed to provide the requested copies of missed installment bills for 2020/2021 within the statutory timeframe. When they did finally provide them on 22/02/2022—well after the due dates—they also charged penalties due to their own delays and lack of responsiveness. This is unacceptable, especially when considering the legal requirements and timeframes.

Unanswered Questions in Your Summary:

Your summary fails to address several key questions:

• Why has the Rates Team been unresponsive?
Despite repeated follow-ups, there has been no explanation as to why the Rates Team failed to respond to my enquiries in a timely manner.
• Why do the performance statistics for the relevant period show a staggering number of 1,600 unattended enquiries, and was my case one of them?
This raises significant concerns about the Council's ability to manage its workload and the impact on individual cases like mine.
• Why has the Rates Team been unable to perform its duties?
Is there an underlying reason, such as operational challenges during COVID-19 (e.g., the team working from home), that hindered their performance?

Your quoted explanation, "Our rates team does not have specific operational timeframes to resolve queries," raises additional concerns. This statement directly conflicts with WCC’s own operational standards and statutory obligations. The Council has an obligation to adhere to set timeframes, especially when managing public funds and addressing queries that impact ratepayers' financial obligations.

It is also unclear why, even if delays were inevitable, the Rates Team did not follow a basic communication protocol by acknowledging receipt of enquiries and providing an estimated response time. A simple response such as, "Your request has been received, and we will respond by [date],” would have helped manage expectations and avoided unnecessary escalation.

Analysis Report of WCC’s Operations
(Not released yet while working on it)

This analysis highlights key considerations based on factual evidence, demonstrating breaches of relevant New Zealand laws by WCC (Wellington City Council) in its management of rates installment billing and penalty claims.

Key Considerations:
• Late Billing (Breach of the Rates Act):
WCC posted the requested copies of installment bills for period 2020/2021 on 22/02/2022, after the due dates had passed. This delay constitutes a breach of the Rates Act. No evidence provided e.g. by email transmission reports etc that WCC tried to fix the reported issue on time.
• Failure to Provide Tax Invoices (Breach of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act):
WCC failed to provide copies of tax invoices within the required 28-day period following a formal request. This violates the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, which mandates timely delivery of tax-related documentation upon request.
• Unfair Penalty Claims (Breach of the Fair Trading Act):
The penalty claims issued by WCC appear to constitute an unfair business practice under the Fair Trading Act, as they were based on incorrect data. The Council’s billing practices resulted in unjust penalties being levied on the ratepayer.

Investigation of Maladministration:

The investigation reveals significant maladministration by WCC, including:

• Failure to Follow Proper Procedures:
WCC has repeatedly failed to follow proper procedures for issuing rates bills, responding to inquiries, and addressing formal objections to penalty claims.
• Unreasonable Delays:
WCC’s significant delays in responding to requests and resolving disputes, particularly the objection to penalty charges raised on 25/05/2022, have further complicated the issue. No response was provided for two years, until 08/07/2024, in relation to complaint # SR-973599.
• Bias in Decision-Making:
There is evidence of bias in the Council's decision-making process, particularly in how penalty claims were processed and how objections were disregarded.
• Lack of Responsiveness from Management and the Governing Body:
The failure of WCC’s management and Governing Body’s office to acknowledge or effectively respond to the ratepayer’s objections and queries demonstrates a lack of interest in resolving the issues.

WCC’s Best Practice Approach:

WCC claims to follow "best practice" in managing occasional delays, but this analysis highlights significant deviations from acceptable standards. As an example, WCC ignored the ratepayer’s objection to penalty charges, dated 25/05/2022, for over two years before issuing a response in July 2024. The fact that billing was based on incorrect data further undermines their adherence to best practice.

Conclusion:
The ratepayer has consistently met his obligations and provided WCC with ample opportunities to correct its mistakes for a fair outcome. Despite this, WCC’s handling of the matter remains inadequate, with the penalty claims raised on 25/05/2022 still unresolved and charges dating back to September 2021 still in dispute.

For these reasons, the Analysis Report remains withheld until WCC reaches a final conclusion. The ratepayer continues to dispute the penalties and reserves the right to escalate the matter further if necessary.

Thank you for your contribution and assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Klaus Schliebe