Gwenda Jones claims she has unwittingly been ‘overpaying' her Western Bay of Plenty District Council rates for 15 years.

And it's a respectable sum – she calculates as much as $18,000. And Gwenda also claims the Western Bay of Plenty District Council won't reimburse her. Why?

First, that word 'overpay” is a contentious one. The council says, in fact, Gwenda has actually been paying the correct rates. But if she had applied for a rebate, then she just may have received a reduction. It's just that she wasn't aware of the rebate.

'And who is aware?” she asks. 'We just see the amount to be paid on the invoice and we pay it. We may grumble but we pay it.” And she has paid, in full and on time, every year.

This is a story about small print, reading the small print – and, most importantly, understanding the small print.

'Imagine if the boot was on the other foot, if I owed them $18,000,” says Gwenda. 'They would chase me all the way to the courts.”

'No,” so says the council. 'If a property had not been charged rates it was liable for, then no recovery action would be taken,” say WBOPDC chief financial officer Matt Potton. 'That's to make sure property owners aren't unfairly penalised.”

And because the rates for the last five years were valid rates, the council confirms there will be no refund or credit available.

It goes back to 2001, when Gwenda and her late husband bought a home in Norm Freeman Drive in Te Puke.

'Look at it for yourself,” says Gwenda, gazing across a grassy expanse to native bush and beyond to the arching Papamoa Hills. It's a spectacular still life framed by her living room window. 'Beautiful flowering trees and I love what the sunrises and sunsets do to that view.”

And so that view could not be built out, the Jones' bought the .1086 hectares adjacent, or contiguous, to their home.

And they started paying rates for that section. '[A cost of] $2200 for the section as well as the $3200 for our home.”

Except Gwenda says she was ‘overpaying' about $1729.44 each year for that view. She should only have been paying $483 or thereabouts. Overpaying? Again the council says she was paying the correct amount but could have applied for a rebate.

'It was only when I was having a grizzle about rates to a neighbour that I became aware.”

Gwenda was immediately on the phone to Western Bay of Plenty District Council to recover 15 years of ‘overpaid' rates – about $18,000.

Gwenda says she got a ‘yes, but no' answer. Yes, Gwenda had been paying full rates – but no, the council wouldn't or couldn't reimburse her. She claims she was told it was bound by the provisions of something called the Local Government Rating Act 2002.

Matt says if a property owner was charged rates they should not have been charged, they would be refunded for up to five years.

But this wasn't the case for Mrs Jones. She was charged correctly but she didn't apply for a rebate that she may be entitled to.

And when she had a grumble to her neighbour Buster Hodges he too discovered he had been burned. Mr Hodges had bought a contiguous section to preserve his vista stretching 'all the way to Mayor Island”. He figures he's out of pocket by $11,000.

'Common sense tells me the council should go ‘hullo! – we have been overcharging these people and they should get a refund' without us going through all this rubbish,” says Buster.

'But providing a refund of these rates would also not be consistent with how we have treated all other property owners with a similar issue,” says Matt.

And while he empathises with Mrs Jones, Matt says council's obligation is to the wider ratepayer base. 'Providing a refund would require additional rates being used to cover the refund, which may not be seen to be fair by other ratepayers.”

The woman on the phone at the council also pointed to some fine print on the back of the rates assessments notice to Gwenda.

It says: ‘Rates Remission of Uniform Charges. Rating units must be contiguous, used as a single entity and owned by the same person or persons.'

'Legalese,” says Gwenda. 'I like my English language. I do word puzzles. But unless you worked in the sector you wouldn't know what that meant.”

But the council says some responsibility must be taken by property owners to determine what they are entitled to in terms of remissions or reductions.

'But even if I had seen it and read it, I would not have understood it,” says Buster. 'It would have taken me three weeks to get my head around it.”

Unless the council is made aware through an application or information provided, it says it has no way of knowing a property is being used contiguously and therefore possibly eligible for a rates rebate.

Unless it visited or mailed all owners to ask them – 'a costly exercise,” says Matt. 'There are more than 21,000 properties in the district so it's not feasible to assess each year which properties may be in this category.”

'If the council was made aware a property might be eligible for contiguous status, we would contact the owners and advise them to apply for a rebate.”

The council says it's always happy to help should someone ask. For their part, Gwenda and Buster will be paying the rebated version of their rates hereon in. 'It's fixed,” says Gwenda.

But they appeal for the council to make things clearer for ratepayers.