Cooma-Monaro Shire Council v McGeehan [2013] NSWLC 14

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cooma-Monaro Shire Council v McGeehan [2013] NSWLC 14 Hearing dates: 19/07/2013 Decision date: 09 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Magistrate Bone Decision: Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $447.74 Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - local council - recovery of water rates - accuracy of water meter - method of testing - rate charged for water usage Legislation Cited: Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cooma-Monaro Shire Council (plaintiff) Andrew M McGeehan (first defendant) Lynda Ryan (second defendant) Janice S Ryan (third defendant) Representation: Mr C Moschoudis for the plaintiff Defendants self-represented File Number(s): 2012/00372787

Judgment

Reasons for Decision 1The plaintiff is suing the defendants for $2,803.35. The claim relates to water rates. The defendants dispute the claim on the basis that (a) they did not receive the water for which they have been charged and (b) the charge has been made at a higher rate than that to which the plaintiff is entitled. The case has been heard in the Small Claims Division. The parties filed affidavits and the matter was heard in an informal manner with a combination of debate and submission. Documents consisting of several hundred pages were tendered.

Background 2The defendants own a twenty-two acre property called "Bulong" which is within the boundaries of the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council. They operate it as a farm. The plaintiff supplies water to the property. The water usage, in kilolitres, as outlined in the plaintiff's water bills have been as follows: * August 2007 - August 2008 (12 months) 372 * August 2008 - August 2009 (12 months) 294 * August 2009 - August 2010 (12 months) 558 * August 2010 - February 2011 (6 months) 1806 * February 2011 - August 2011 (6 months) 399 * August 2011 - February 2012 (6 months) 47 3The disputed account relates to the water usage between August 2010, and February 2012. It can immediately be seen that the alleged water usage in most of this period is out of all proportion to the usage at other times. There is no suggestion that the defendants have attempted to do anything devious or under-handed in order to minimise their bills. The plaintiff suggests that the pipes on their property were old and there was a leaking of water from the pipes into the ground. The defendants accept that the pipes were old and there had been some leakage but steps were taken to rectify the problem by gradually checking and replacing the pipes and the defendants maintain that the water meter, which was replaced in November 2011, could not have been working properly during the August 2010 to February 2012 period. 4After receiving the account for the water usage of 1806kl, the defendants requested the plaintiff to test the water meter. The plaintiff did so on 17 March 2011. The plaintiff maintains that the testing was done properly and showed that the meter was accurately recording water usage. The defendants maintain that the testing was not done properly.