By JESSE GRAHAM and KATH GANNAWAY
A BADGER Creek couple have refused a debt-reduction deal from the council after alleging contractors stole and burnt belongings in a 2013 demolition.
Carol Gallagher and James Fewster have hit back at the Yarra Ranges Council after a deal was proposed earlier in the year to reduce their debt from a court-ordered demolition by $9500.
The deal was sent by Yarra Ranges Council CEO Glenn Patterson, in response to a letter from the Victorian Ombudsman, recommending a reduction in their $37,119 demolition bill.
The bill for the demolition, which will become a debt against the property, would have become $27,619 on the proviso that the couple could not disclose any details of the settlement to third parties, such as the media.
The release form for the agreement also stated that no further claims could be made against Yarra Ranges Council in relation to the incident.
But the couple refused the deal, including when their deadline for accepting was extended, stating the offer was not enough, and did not replace the items they claim were destroyed.
“We want that debt totally wiped and compensation for everything they took,” Ms Gallagher told the Mail.
“It’s so wrong what they’ve done, and I want them to pay, otherwise they’re going to do it to other people.”
The demolition was carried out on 25 and 26 November, after the courts ordered that sheds built without a permit on the couple’s Don Road property were to be taken down.
Ms Gallagher and Mr Fewster claim that they had removed personal belongings from the sheds and were in the process of demolishing them with a private contractor when they hit the council deadline, and that the council-appointed contractors destroyed or removed the belongings along with the sheds.
The council furiously denied the allegations at the time, including at a public council meeting on 28 January, 2014.
But in a letter from the Victorian Ombudsman’s office on 20 November 2014 to Ms Gallagher and Mr Fewster, Deputy Ombudsman John Taylor wrote that a number of deficiencies were identified in the council’s handling of the complaint.
Mr Taylor wrote that the council did not keep adequate photographic and documentary proof of items removed or destroyed, the state of those items, the reason the property was considered unsightly or dangerous and whether it had authority to remove or destroy the items.
“We concluded that it is difficult to substantiate what items of your personal property the council removed or destroyed,” he wrote.
“However, on the available evidence, it appears that the council removed a number of items of your property outside the court orders.”
Mr Taylor wrote that he considered council’s offer of a $9500 reduction fair, but the council has refused to reveal how they came to that figure.
Yarra Ranges Council’s director of Planning, Building and Health Andrew Paxton said in response to questions about the Ombudsman’s letter, that the couple had been provided with “every opportunity” to remove their valuables – “which they chose not to do.”
But this conflicts with Ms Gallagher and Mr Fewster’s statements about removing their belongings, and Mr Taylor’s statement that the council did not have authority to destroy property outside of the court order.
The Mail asked the council whether it had compared quotes for the demolition with multiple contractors, but received an unclear answer.
“Council follows a robust procurement process to ensure we engage appropriately-qualified contractors,” Mr Paxton said in response.
“Cost is one of our considerations, as is the health and safety credentials to minimise risk to property owners and the public.”
Ryrie Ward councillor Fiona McAllister said that a reduction in the couple’s debt did not replace the items they say were destroyed, and that she did not agree with the decision.
“Basically, the Ombudsman said council had no right to destroy the property,” she said.
“It sickens me, to think it happened – and we know it happened, there’s no disputing that.
“I would have thought an apology would have been appropriate.”
Following a further request from the Mail on whether more than one quote was asked for, whether the chosen quote was the lowest, and council’s policy on non-disclosure clauses, mayor Maria McCarthy declared the matter closed.
“This matter has been satisfactorily finalised following the Ombudsman’s investigation and council will not be making further comment,” she said.
“We will continue to communicate directly with the affected residents on the matter as required.”
The couple had been in court disputes with the council for a decade on the matter of removing the sheds, but by the time of the demolition, had moved into a recently-completed house on their nearby property.
The extended deadline for Ms Gallagher and Mr Fewster to accept the debt reduction was 16 February, and was not accepted by the couple.
