Auckland Council v Penny Bright: $104,000 legal bill in rates debt battle… NZ Herald.
Auckland Council has racked up more than $100,000 on lawyers in an ongoing battle with activist Penny Bright over $33,372 in unpaid rates and penalties.
The council has hired Simpson Grierson senior litigation partner William Akel to fight a defamation claim by Ms Bright against council chief executive Stephen Town.
Ms Bright has filed a claim for damages of $350,000 against Mr Town for comments he made in a media release last year about taking court action to recover unpaid rates on her house in School Rd, Kingsland.
The release said Ms Bright had made “wild and inaccurate accusations” about the council and its probity as the basis for not paying her fair share for the running of the city.
Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show the council has incurred legal costs of $6416 and “significant” in-house costs to ratepayers for trying to recover Ms Bright’s unpaid rates, which are now owing since 2007.
Read more >>>here<<<.
Anyone who knows my work knows I am passionate about trying to reduce Council Meddling, and spending, and have stood for council many times on these very issues.
If the above story was happening to anyone else *But Penny*, I would support them in their stand.
Rates rapistry is evil, and Resistance is Heroic *UNLESS* you are a Socialist like Penny who thinks Governments and councils should do everything, and give away ‘free stuff’ all the time!
Well Socialism Costs Bigggggggg Buck$! and where does that Loot come from to pay for all these Big ideas?
FROM TAXES AND RATES!
So Penny is one of these HYPOCRITES who want the government to do everything… yet does not want to *PAY* for her Ideas…
She is suffering at the hands of *A BEAST OF HER OWN POLITICAL CONSTRUCTION*….. Ironic…. and typical that she is oblivious that it is her own nutbar politics that are now chomping down on her on the Butt.
…And costing/raising her neighbors rates in the process to pay for her hypocrisy.
Read moreabout her Grand delusions here Super City: Mayoral candidate Penny Bright
Penny Bright is standing for Auckland mayor in the 2010 local body elections. She provided this statement:
“Thank God when the Nazis invaded France – the French Resistance didn’t just wring their hands and say “Oh well – it’s too late – we can’t do anything.”
Thoughout New Zealand towns and cities, are historically significant marble monuments dedicated to those who left in their khakhi uniforms and never came home.
Is that why 12,500 ANZACs died in Northern France and Belgium?
So the income stream from operating and managing OUR key public infrastructural water services, transport and rubbish collection could be taken over by French multinational company Veolia – without OUR consent?
Without a shot being fired – this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY is a blatant corporate raid, aimed at seizing control and privatising over $28 billion worth of Auckland regional public assets.
This has been another Rogernomic$ blitzkreig, pushed by big business, in order to run the Auckland region, ‘like a business, by business, for business’.
How business will take over is through the corporate ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) model, into which 75% of Auckland regional rates will be paid, run by boards of unelected business appointees, over which the public have no direct control.
The other Mayoral candidates who support – or are not opposed to the CCO model – therefore support this corporate takeover.
The corporate agenda is to ‘commercialise, corporatise – then PRIVATISE these public assets through long-term leases via Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Although the infrastructure may remain in public ownership – the income stream from operating and managing the asset will flow (usually overseas) into the banks of private shareholders.
The aim of the $upercity is to replace thousands of private ‘piggy in the middle’ snouts with fewer but bigger multinational snouts – into a bigger public trough.
This political battle isn’t between ‘left’ and ‘right’.
It’s between the corporates and the public, and those who serve their interests. ”
Sorry Penny…. It is about ‘Left and Right’ and you are a communist who does not want to pay her share…. its as simple as that.
It is with some sadness that I read of her passing.
In such times Politics should be set aside… She sure was a Battler!
Ex Mayor of Auckland John Banks visits Penny in Hospital.
Read: John Banks takes the hand of Penny Bright and says there is no bigger fighter
More from Tim…
‘Revolution At The Roots’ Making Hamilton’s City Council smaller,better, and more conducive towards Prosperity. Tim Wikiriwhi.
Hamilton City Rates System Review 2011. Where I Stand.
Tim Wikiriwhi represents Affordable Waikato in the Hamilton City Council Elections. Mayor and West Ward.
Hamilton and Wellington Rate payers, and Renters Beware! The Wolf of Socialism is at your Door. ‘Living wage’
If only Hamiltonians had listened to me. Your 38 million dollar mistake!
7 thoughts on “It’s time to pay the Piper Penny Bright! The Hypocrisy of a Lefty Nut Bar.”
Pity you didn’t allow your Liberty to come to the fore.
After all that’s what Penny is on about.
Transparency in Govt.
She is at Liberty to express herself this way. She knows the consequences and as for Town, well don’t talk about him in Tauranga.
So far Penny has won most of her battles.
ACC wastes more money everyday in troughers and that’s what Penny wants bought out into the open. A laudable project I would have thought, especially as its all already in digital format and just needs publishing into an appropriate website.
ACC is not a private company and is bound by the Law which it (and many other councils just simply ignore).
I don’t know Penny but I do support her objectives.
Did you not read that *If it was anyone else* I Too would support them?
Did you not read *why* I dont support *her?*
She is being trodden down by a monster of her own making…. a Too powerful, and unjust Government which is so because of Socialist like herself.
The Auckland Council is a monster all right – I am one of its ratepayers – but not a monster of Penny’s creation by any stretch of the imagination. You know who to blame for it – Rodney Hide.
“If it was anyone else” shows a lack of principle on your part, Tim.
My subject matter is the recent Report of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, regarding my petition:
Petition 2014/33 of Penelope Mary Bright and 55 others, and Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Governance and accountability of council-controlled organisations
The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered Petition 2014/33 of Penelope Mary Bright and 55 others, and the report from the Controller and AuditorGeneral, Governance and accountability of council-controlled organisations, and recommends that the House take note of its report.
The petition from Penelope Mary Bright and 55 others requests
That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the cost-effectiveness, transparency, and democratic accountability to Auckland Council and the majority of Auckland citizens and ratepayers, of all Auckland Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).
We decided to consider this petition alongside a report from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) which covers similar issues about the governance and accountability of council-controlled organisations (CCOs).
Accountability and transparency of Auckland’s council-controlled organisations
The petitioner told us of her concern that the public was unable to have a say on the model of Auckland’s CCOs after the 2009 Auckland “super city” merger.
She stressed that the public is also unable to have a say about the directorship of CCOs or to have any direct say in CCO statements of intent.
She believes that this is because CCOs are not classified as local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
The petitioner strongly believes that CCOs need to be more accountable to Auckland ratepayers because a percentage of rates goes towards the operations of CCOs.
She told us that she is defending her “lawful right as a citizen to know where my money is being spent”.
The petitioner questions how the efficiencies and cost-effectiveness of Auckland CCOs is monitored.
She is particularly concerned that information about the financial transactions of CCOs is unclear and difficult for the public to access.
For example, she would prefer that contractor transactions were easily available in a written format for public scrutiny.
The petitioner also asked why Auckland Transport does not provide open access to information about transport subsidies, given that much transport in Auckland is privately operated.
We were also told that Auckland rates have increased to pay for a transport levy.
The petitioner believes that the transparency of CCO operations would be improved if the Public Records Act 2005, specifically section 17 (Requirement to create and maintain records), was “implemented and enforced in a proper way”.
The petitioner acknowledged that some Auckland CCOs have made progress towards providing more transparent information.
She praised Watercare Services Limited for acting on some of her concerns.
However, she says that more needs to be done.
In particular, she believes that all Auckland CCOs should clearly and uniformly display information on their websites about the procurement of their awarded contracts.
She suggests that the following standard information be made readily available to the public:
the unique contract number
the name of the consultant or contractor
a brief description of the scope of the contract
the start and finish dates for the contract
the monetary value of the contract (including subcontractors)
whether the contract was awarded by direct appointment or public tender.
To require all CCOs to clearly display this information—given that, according to the petitioner, they are not classed as local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Rating) Act—the petitioner sees value in making minor legislative changes to one or more of the following Acts: the Local Government Act, the Local Government (Rating) Act, or the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
We asked the petitioner whether she had tried using the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to obtain information about contracts.
The petitioner said that she has not received the level of information that she has requested.
Usually, this is on the grounds that the information is commercially sensitive.
The petitioner considers that this information should not be classed as commercially sensitive once a contract has been awarded.
We note that CCOs are subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and if people are dissatisfied with the information provided as a result of requests they should seek redress through the Ombudsman.
We would like to thank the OAG for its report on the governance and accountability of CCOs.
The report provided us with useful information that helped us consider Ms Bright’s petition.
We also would like to thank the petitioner for coming down from Auckland to speak to us about her petition.
We agree that ratepayers should be able to easily access information about how public money collected through rates is spent.
We support the petitioner’s plea for transparency and standardisation of the information that Auckland CCOs provide to the public.
We note the petitioner’s desire for legislative change, as well as for an inquiry into the cost effectiveness, transparency, and democratic accountability of Auckland CCOs.
Penny for prison
Adam J Holland for mayor.
Pay your rates Rrrreal fast. Got it? Good! That’s the idea.
Do as you’re told, Penny.