V8 freeloaders billed

[hospitalfood]

i hate councils doing this kind of thing. what happened to nz ?

the home owners cold hire scaffold and the council could do nothing about it, the home owners could probably even accept donations from people who decided to visit

[RantyDave]

Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.

It seems obvious to me that Hamilton has just too much of a reputation as a nice place to live and that the council has resorted to extreme measures to keep the hoardes of potential Hamiltonians from moving there.

Either that or they're people with "geography teacher" leather patches on their elbows who've FORGOTTEN WHO THEY FUCKING WORK FOR.

Dave

[steve_t]

i hate councils doing this kind of thing. what happened to nz ?

the home owners cold hire scaffold and the council could do nothing about it, the home owners could probably even accept donations from people who decided to visit

They already said that anything like this would need a permit.... and they would decline all applications of this nature

[NDORFN]

Unbelievable

[Laava]

I am looking to hire workers for my new roof renovation and testing company. We are based in Hamilton and work sporadically, often turning up with a large workforce. The emphasis is on a more laid back work environment, with a strong team building work ethic. I have a contract for the central Hamilton area around April next year. It would involve a days training in rooftop observance and multiple demonstrations of the arrangement of rooftop furniture. Sorry, I would be unable to pay you, so wouldn't be expectant of too much production.

[Jantar]

116 B. Offence to use building for use for which it is not safe or not sanitary, or if it has inadequate means of escape from fire(1) No person may—

(1) (a) use a building, or knowingly permit another person to use a building, for a use for which the building is not safe or not sanitary; or

(b) use a building, or knowingly permit another person to use a building, that has inadequate means of escape from fire.

(2) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.

Reading 116 B (1) (a), the council could also fine anyone who smokes in their own home unless the home is specifically designed for smoking.

The application of this part of the act for the purpose of preventing people from watching an event is going beyond the intent of the act and the council could find themselves in trouble if they don't apply the act evenly and consistantly.

[sosman]

That's it. Superfuckincity the Waikato.

When I read this earlier, I developed a twitch. Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.

Yep wot he said!

[shafty]

Reading 116 B (1) (a), the council could also fine anyone who smokes in their own home unless the home is specifically designed for smoking.

The application of this part of the act for the purpose of preventing people from watching an event is going beyond the intent of the act and the council could find themselves in trouble if they don't apply the act evenly and consistantly.

You tell 'em Jantar - you're bloody well right.

[vifferman]

In my (tiny, befuddled) mind, it would be understandable for the council to fine people in incidents where someone did fall from a roof and hurt themselves, but this is a bit like fining someone for speeding because their vehicle is capable of going faster than the speed limit, or of crashing and injuring somebody.
It's fairly obvious it has nothing to do with looking out for people's safety, and everything to do with rampant bureaucracy and the council worrying about the race promoters bleating about people not paying to watch the races.
Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

[Quasievil]

Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

That was beautifully put mate, but we all know the answer in this modern world eh

[steve_t]

... this is a bit like fining someone for speeding because their vehicle is capable of going faster than the speed limit

Ummm.... you do know that they do this right?

[CookMySock]

LOL they should all throw the infringement notice in the bin. The ONLY way councils (or the police) make this sort of shit stick, is get everyone going to meetings and getting all paniccy about it.

Don't play their game. Throw the document in the bin. Go back to the interesting thing you were doing. Don't discuss. Don't talk to them at all. It's all a head game designed for them to win, and for you to lose. Sharpen up!

Steve

[Deano]

Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

That was beautifully put mate, but we all know the answer in this modern world eh

I work for a Council, but am not 'The Council', or even an elected representative.

I don't agree with what Hamiltron Council have done, but conversely, if a ratepayer uses that old chestnut on me, I totally switch off. I am employed by the CEO of the Council, not the ratepayers.

I reckon I provide a pretty good service in my role, but we do get a lot of nutters ringing in with frivolous and vexatious complaints about their neighbours - when they don't get the result they want and claim "but you work for me" -they can go take a running jump.

Then they write to the Mayor, who often panders to their frivolous demands.

I could go on and on about office politics and shite, but I must get back to work hassling some more ratepayes

p.s. I don't agree with what Hamiltron Council have done

[tri boy]

"Dr White, Councilor Smith is here for his root canal"
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-bOt..._dentist_song/

[SS90]

Hmmm,

Call me cynical but I think the Council have really thought this through and will get their money.

Why?

$1500.

To get a lawer to write a letter will cost MINIMUM $350 (plus the one hour consultation....... $350)

PLUS the one hour it takes to research the building code (and precidences)

ANOTHER $350

$1050

Plus the stamp and the envelope ($5)

$1055

For a bloody letter.

Any good lawyer will tell you this (most won't) and, as such it is simply not worth the fight.

I don't agree with it in the slightest, but, hey this is the world we live in.

It's revenue gathering and nothing else.

It's along the same lines of continuous vehicle licencing (and sending you to Baycorp if you let your car rego laps)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

sad sad times.

Chasing after ratepayers for $1500 extra "for dangerous use"

Did any of the V8 racers get fines for dangerous use of a motor vehicle?

God, imagine if one did a burn out.............