LETTER: Flushed with excess

29th January 2010

I feel very sorry for Marie O'Neill. She should not have had to worry about this problem right on Christmas.

Here are my comments to your article.

1. Payment is due by July with an "expected completion date" as I understand, for the first connections being early 2011 (you can expect the final completion date for connections will be much later than that). What other commercial entity can expect prepayment of the product at least six months prior to the service being either commissioned or available without the use of threats as is the case here? There is a complete failure by Manukau Water Limited to treat this as a fair commercial transaction. An example would be Telecom wanting you to prepay a new network system before it was available, simply no one would do it. There may be a requirement once commissioned and available due the existing system for example is to be shutdown, but certainly not a prepayment.

2. That the option to pay over time with an interest charge fails to recognise the interest the homeowner is paying prior to the service even being available or commissioned.

3. Given that Manukau City is likely to be absorbed into the proposed super city structure, what assurity do we have that this project will be completed on time and/or not delayed indefinitely by the new management structure?

4. Manukau Water requires a caveat to be lodged over the homeowner's property to secure their funding option ("The caveat is a standard industry practice," he adds. "In any commercial agreement, there needs to be some level of security for the firm.") However Manukau Water has refused to provide any recourse or security to the homeowner during the period between full or part payment of the connection fee and the service becoming operable. The comment in relation to "industry standard " is incorrect when dealing with this sort of levy and or service, the correct proceedure should be as per below in item 5.

5. Councils have a set procedure for striking or targeting rates to fund projects like this via the Rating Act and forwarding those funds collected to the appropriate wholly owned enterprise, in this case Manukau Water. This would save the homeowner the expense of caveats on titles and prepayment months prior to any service becoming operable. The same issue of decommissioning septic tanks and installation of sewerage reticulation has been dealt with in Rotorua where Rotorua City Council have adopted the above system. The first payments I understand were due once the service became available and the homeowner was connected. That seems to display fairness to all parties. In addition there are also further significant costs in having the same caveat removed which I am sure Manukau Water will charge the homeowner for at the end of the payment option.

6. Manukau Water have been very quick to point out they are a commercial entity however they forget the following:

• All large commercial entities are expected to treat individuals in a equitable manner
• They have allowed little or no time form the date of advice for the homeowner to take proper legal advice prior to cut off dates
• They have refused to explore discuss or reply to specific questions raised by those legal advisors
• They have threatened the homeowners should they fail to comply with their payment demands and cut off dates
• They are a wholly owned entity of the Manukau City Council, whom the homeowners are also stakeholders.

7. Manukau City Council should take ownership of this issue and set a targeted rate to fund it.

Neil O'Hara
Kawakawa Bay