SOUTH Hams Council has secured another liability order against a businessman over non-payment of the Dart­mouth Business Improvement District levy.

Colin Payne, 72, of Deer Park Homes Village, Stoke Fleming, who owns a holiday chalet at Norton Park on the outskirts of the town, challenged the council's application for the order, when he appeared before Plymouth magistrates last Friday.

Sonia Powell, representing the council, told the court an invoice for £150 had been posted to Mr Payne on June 17 last year. Since then, she said, he had been sent reminders on December 1 last year and on January 16 this year. A final reminder was issued on February 13 before a summons was sent on March 24.

Mr Payne claimed the invoice was voidable, saying he had no prior knowledge it would be issued; it was unsolicited; and he would derive no benefit from the BID. He told the court that when he first received the invoice he thought it was a scam.

He argued that – along with 173 Norton Park chalet owners – he had not been consulted about the BID and did not know about the vote which took place to set it up. Mr Payne added: 'Those who were eligible to vote had been disenfranchised in voting for or against the BID due to non-delivery of the proposed BID business plan on the first occasion, and non-delivery of the ballot papers on the second occasion.'

After receiving the invoice, Mr Payne said he 'protested that the chalet owners of Norton Park were unlikely to receive any tangible benefits from payment of the levy'.

He said: 'This proved to be the case because in the billing period for which I am being ordered to settle the outstanding invoice , June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015, no tangible benefits have been received for the approximate £25,500 which we were collectively due to pay by our £150 levy invoices. Indeed, only in the next 2015/2016 budget does Dartmouth BID Ltd include an amount of £2,000 for a proposed bus stop at the Norton Park entrance.'

Mr Payne also pointed to a mistake made in literature put out by the BID which indicated the BID levy for small businesses would be £100, not the £150 claimed.

Miss Powell told the court that the error was spotted by the council and letters were sent out saying that £150 was the correct figure – before the council sent out its invoices.

She had earlier told the court the BID had made every effort to let businesses know there was going to be a ballot and that none of letters sent to businesses at Norton Park had been returned to the council.

She added that the council had followed legislation correctly and that the ombudsman, who had been looking into claims of maladministration with regard to the BID, had so far ruled in favour of the council in several cases.

Mr Payne also questioned whether there was in fact an 'operating agreement' between the council and the BID when the invoices were sent out. He said the agreement wasn't signed until December 17 last year and it had been confirmed that 'prior to the signing of the operational agreement, no other agreement existed'.

Prior to then, the council had advanced £50,000 to the BID in two instalments, the court was told.

The chairman of the magistrates said it was 'unbelievable' that the council would advance so much money without a formal agreement being in place.

Miss Powell, however, said there had been a verbal agreement, it had been minuted and was agreed by the council's audit committee.

She added the council had acted according to legislation, it had a legal requirement to collect the BID levy and loaning funds to the BID constituted an agreement, whether there was a signed agreement or not.

The magistrates said it was 'surprising that money had been forwarded before a formal agreement had been signed'.

However, they were of a view that regulations had been properly adhered to, it was not for the court to decide if there had been any tangible benefits from the BID for Mr Payne and that the law required him to pay the levy.

The court made a liability order for £150 and awarded £80 costs to the council.

After the hearing, the clerk told Mr Payne if he wished to contest the order, he would have to apply to the High Court for a judicial review.