An Analogy of Council’s Response
In response to a few of the many Administrative Complaints lodged with Council, some Unit Owners have received a letter of response from Council. The response is full of Council doublespeak and attempts to deflect from the true issue, which is over-assessment and overcharging.
In an attempt to untangle the response and make it more understandable, we provide this analogy.
We shall use a fictitious GrocerGreen orange selling operation in this analogy, and a case where they may change the method of pricing of oranges without changing the price of 12 oranges. This analogy closely follows the methodology the Council has adopted.
Imagine GrocerGreen has a Planning dept and a Pricing dept. The Planning dept has adopted and utilises plans for the display of bags of 12 oranges and bags of 24 oranges in the stores.
The Pricing dept sets and adopts the pricing strategies for those oranges by designing and adopting a “Revenue Statement”.
The Revenue Statement accepts the current price of 12 oranges. The price of 24 oranges will be double the 12 orange bag price. A price is set for the 14 orange bag.
Market research determines that most sales will fall within the 15-23 orange range.
The Revenue Statement then states that any orange sales in the popular bracket of more than 14 to less than 24 oranges ( 15-23 oranges ) will be charged the 24 orange price. This will maximise revenue from orange sales.
The Pricing dept decides they will start packaging oranges only in bags of 14 or 24 and have loose oranges also available. This forces sales of more than 14 and less than 24 oranges to fall within the Revenue Statement contrived bracket of 15-23. They set a new price for the 14 orange bag.
Existing within the Revenue Statement is the artificially created pricing bracket for sales of 15 to 23 oranges. There is now a bag of 14 oranges available.
The devious pricing structure within the Revenue Statement and results in charging the buyers of more than the 14 orange bags the 24 orange price.
Now anyone wanting more than 14 oranges but less than 24 oranges must buy the 14 orange bag and add loose oranges, but pay the 24 orange price because of the 15-23 bracket outlined within the Revenue Statement.
No reasonable person would consider the above pricing strategy fair and proper. So why does the Council employ the same crooked strategy. That surely would not comply with Australian competition and consumer protection laws – in particular the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Orange Example Price Table
| How Many Oranges | Set Price | Price Charged |
| 14 | $7.00 | $7.00 |
| 15 | – | $12 |
| 16 | – | $12 |
| … 17 -> 21 | – | $12 |
| 22 | – | $12 |
| 23 | – | $12 |
| 24 | $12.00 | $12.00 |
Similar to the orange analogy, is the pricing structure for bulk waste within Council.
The City of Moreton Bay Planning dept determines that units in strata properties with bulk refuse collection will generate 120L of general waste each week.
The City of Moreton Bay Corporate Services dept (=Pricing Dept), ignoring the adopted Planning dept waste volume metric of 120L, assesses those same units as generating 140L per week or some other made-up number within the bracket range 141L-239L and then supplies bulk bins to accommodate the combined waste volume.
Their adopted “Revenue Statement” only has pricing for 140L or 240L. They have created an artificial bracket of 141L to 239L of waste per week and they then set the bracket pricing to be that of 240L.
Properties are then artificially assessed a waste generation level between 141L and 239L as determined by Council, and because their concocted Revenue Statement bracket says so, they are classified as being “Bulk Bin Equivalent 240L”. This results in all the properties being charged for waste at the maximum bracket level.
Here is the paragraph the Council has adopted. Whether or not it is legal to set a charge in this format under Consumer Legislation is debatable:-
City of Moreton Bay Revenue Statement para 4.5
Properties with greater than 140L of general waste but less than 240L of general waste, and greater than 70L of recycling but less than 140L of recycling available per unit per week will be assigned a Multi Res 240L Max charge equivalent to a 240/240L kerbside charge.
The Revenue Statement then results in a price table of:
| Waste Litres | Set Charge | Price Charged |
|---|---|---|
| 120 | – | – |
| 140 | $423 | $423 |
| 141 | – | $472 |
| 142 | – | $472 |
| .. 143-237 | – | $472 |
| 238 | – | $472 |
| 239 | – | $472 |
| 240 | $472 | $472 |