Building owner wants council to compensate
A civil dispute between the Timaru District Council and a man saddled with a $8050 bill for work to a council-owned parking building from about 10 years ago is before the court.
Leslie Raymond Rawlings argued the council should reimburse him for work done to improve access to a building he owned in order to secure a tenant, during a civil case before Judge Joanna Maze in the Timaru District Court on Tuesday.
Rawlings claimed the council owed him $23,050 for curtailing access to a commercial property he owned and leased at 57 Sophia St, Timaru, by erecting a parking building next door with an entrance too small for a prospective tenant – then charged him for work to widen the entrance when he complained.
‘‘The [prospective tenants] expressed reluctance to agree to a lease while the access to the building was limited,’’ Rawlings said.
‘‘My understanding was that the defendant’s car park building effectively imposed height restrictions on anyone leaving the building via that route, and this would be unsuitable for a business where people were carrying goods, including bicycles, on the roofs of cars. The barrier arm was similarly problematic.’’
Rawlings demanded $15,000 in rent lost while he negotiated with the prospective tenant from mid2010, as well as the $8050 he paid ‘‘under duress’’ to resolve the issue on October 25, 2011.
‘‘I intended that phrase [under duress] to mean that the payment was without prejudice to my right to bring a claim in respect of the payment, and that the payment was required by me in mitigation of losses which would otherwise have continued,’’ Rawlings said.
‘‘The required work was carried out in a reasonably short order. The council widened the Sophia St entrance, so that vehicles could travel in both directions. A pay-and-display car parking system was utilised and still exists today.
‘‘Within about a month, the [prospective tenant] entered into a tenancy for the building.’’
Ashley Harper, council district services manager at the time, said Rawlings was billed for the alteration to the building because he was the ‘‘sole beneficiary’’ of it.
‘‘It is common practice for us to ask for payment upfront for work that is of a private nature,’’ Harper said.
Before agreeing to widen the entrance to the parking building, the council offered to install a ‘‘loading zone’’ beside Rawlings’ building where the goods strapped to vehicle roofs could be dropped off. It also offered to supply a remote control device.
‘‘This offer to remedy the concerns was not accepted,’’ Harper said.
Judge Maze said she needed a few points clarified before making a decision. Namely, she wanted to know what authority Rawlings had to bring the proceeding; and to test Rawlings’ claim that the council was contractually obliged to provide unhindered access to the parking spaces, under an agreement both parties signed in 1993 and updated in 1999.
Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant had seven days to make further submissions, the judge said.
The council offered to install a ‘‘loading zone’’.