Watercare is chasing what could amount to millions of dollars in lost revenue from homeowners in the Matakana and Point Wells area, who it claims have unauthorised wastewater connections.
The issue arose when Warkworth accountant Darren Knight asked, on local social media sites, whether anyone else had received a letter from Watercare demanding payment for services backdated to 2016.
Knight had bought two properties during that time. One of the letters sought to recover costs for services up until September 2020 amounting to $2767, plus an infrastructure growth charge of $8303, and administration costs of around $315 – in total, just over $11,300.
He says numerous people from Matakana and Point Wells subdivisions have received similar letters.
These include owners in Matakana Green, Tamahunga Drive including Laly Haddon Place, and the Hurt subdivision in Point Wells.
It seems Watercare started investigating connections when a homeowner contacted them asking why they were not getting a wastewater charge. That enquiry prompted an audit of the Matakana and Point Wells area, primarily involving recent subdivisions.
Watercare head of commercial customers Jane Eggleton says the audit found 50 properties in Matakana had unauthorised connections and so far, two in Point Wells with the audit still underway.
Eggleton doesn’t discount an audit in the Snells Beach area as well, but says there are no plans to audit Warkworth, as issues of non-compliance usually involve just a wastewater connection, and Warkworth homes have mains water as well as wastewater, Eggleton says.
She says the original homeowners did not apply to Watercare to connect to the network and had not paid connection costs or service charges since connections were made.
While Watercare can hook up a property, connecting can also legally be done by registered drainlayers.
But the system can be open to misunderstandings and abuse by others.
On the question of who should have paid for the connections, opinions differ.
The large number of properties at Matakana may indicate misinformation to developers, or to property owners from their plumbers or builders, Eggleton says.
She says the building plan should clearly state what the owner is paying the builder for, and what the owners are responsible for, with building contracts differing between companies.
Matakana Green developer Leo Nelis says the purchasers of the sections were responsible for the connection on his development.
McMahon Builders director Wayde McMahon says the homes his company built in Laly Haddon Place had to have the fee paid before the owners could move in.
He is sceptical about the high number of owners being contacted by Watercare and advises them to check with the builder and drainlayer first to see if the fee has already been paid.
Knight says the land developer of his property, which he has since sold, was still the legal owner at the time of the connection.
Rodney Local Board deputy chair Beth Houlbrooke contacted Watercare on his behalf, which then dropped the connection fee, she says.
Knight wonders how many other people in those subdivisions are in a similar situation.
“Retired people who may have built their last home on these sites may not be in a financial position to pay such a large and unexpected bill,” he says.
Watercare chief customer officer Amanda Singleton says they are working with property owners on payment plans.
“For all our customers though, it’s only fair that we identify and remedy illegal connections,” she says.
They are working to reduce the likelihood of further unauthorised connections occurring in the future.
“This work includes educating residential property developers about their legal obligations,” Singleton says.
She says Council now requests a Certificate of Connection from Watercare at the time they are reviewing an application for a code of compliance.
Some property owners raised concerns about caveats being put on properties if they challenged the fee, interfering with their ability to sell.
When this concern was put to Watercare, it responded that, to date, it hadn’t been necessary, and they were working with customers to reach agreements without having to pursue these options.
Houlbrooke says this is the second time she has intervened in Watercare charges in the past few years.
A couple of other property owners were charged for connections their developer had already paid, she says.
“It doesn’t instill a lot of confidence in Watercare or Council letting these properties fall through the cracks,” she says.
Leo Nelis agrees.
“When Watercare goes after the money after five years, they should maybe look at the way they do business.”
