RATEPAYERS are concerned a class action against Redland City Council over a canal maintenance levy would impact council’s decisions on future maintenance costs.
About 180 people attended meetings with Shine Lawyers on Tuesday about a proposed action over the full refund of a levy collected from ratepayers between 2011 and 2017 to do dredging, maintenance and repairs on canal and lake estates.
Shine senior solicitor Tristan Gaven said council had refunded $8 million of unspent monies after finding the levy to be invalid. Council collected $12 million over the six years.
“It is apparent that council has no intention of refunding the $4 million,” Mr Gaven said.
Shine special counsel Joshua Aylward said the meetings at Cleveland were to gauge interest. They would need a few hundred people to proceed with the action.
In an advertisement in this week’s Redland City Bulletin Raby Bay Ratepayers Association said 300 residents had agreed at an association meeting to work constructively with council.
The advert states they agreed to continue with current levy arrangements which “protect each resident from the huge financial risk of catastrophic revetment wall failures”.
“At this vital time Shine Lawyers propose suing council by a class action to obtain more money on top of last year’s generous refund process,” it states.
“This action has the potential to gravely prejudice the position of Raby Bay residents.”
At the meeting one person said it was frivolous to take court action that might lead to ratepayers each receiving a few thousand dollars but could result in council refusing to pay future repairs.
Another said the solicitors were in Cleveland in their suits to “stir up trouble”.
However one attendee said many speakers who had talked against the legal action were Raby Bay Ratepayers Association members and said they had spoken enough.
Mr Aylward said Shine had investigated the potential legal action after being approached by ratepayers.
“We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t think this has legs,” he said.
“We don’t run matters we don’t think we could win.”
Mr Aylward said councils were required to have public liability insurance which should cover costs if the action went ahead
He said it was the first time he had come across a council giving money back to ratepayers.
“Maybe the right legal advice for council (before paying the refunds) would have been for them not to pay (the original refund) because, if sued, their insurance would pay.”
Mr Aylward said the class action did not require ratepayers to put in money but instead funders would contribute for an agreed percentage.
“If we lose the action that’s the funders’ problem,” he said.
“They are the ones who are liable.”
Ratepayers who express interest in the class action would receive further information and be able to meet with solicitors ahead of any legal action proceeding.
