Public Defender: City of Sydney Council doesn’t care it’s in the wrong

A DODGY road sent storm water into this Steve Drakoulis house in 2011. He was compensated but when it happened again the council refused to pay, claiming it had no knowledge of the problem.

Fighting for a fair go: Steve Drakoulis can’t understand why the City thinks it isn’t liable. Picture: Craig Greenhill

THE way Steve Drakoulis sees it, if the City of Sydney can spend $80,000 on a “pop up” bar serving only water for just nine days then it can afford $4300 to fix the damage storm water and dodgy road caused to his Newtown house.

While Clover Moore’s cabal thinks it isn’t liable, leading lawyers say Mr Drakoulis has a case.

In 2011 his Herbert St investment property was damaged by water overflowing from the gutter. Tree roots had raised the road surface higher than the footpath. The City compensated him $2300.

In 2012, City inspectors decided it better fix the road, gutter and footpath — in 2016-17.

In 2014 a severe downpour again sent storm water into the property. But the City has refused to pay, saying it was not liable due to the protections of the Civil Liability Act.

In a recent letter to Mr Drakoulis, the City cited section 45 of the Act, which says a roads authority must have “actual knowledge of the particular risk”.

Click on this link to get your legal dramas sorted for free now in our live legal blog

The root of the problem: a tree raised the road surface outside Mr Drakoulis’s property. Picture: Craig Greenhill

The letter said the City “was not aware that the condition of the kerb and gutter would cause stormwater to enter your property.

“There is no basis to state categorically that had the kerb and gutter works been carried out prior to ... 2014 the water ingress would not have occurred.”

It also argued it had to “operate with reasonable resources and within budgetary restraints” — a reference section 42.

The City has run net profits totalling more than $400 million over the past three years, so it’s hardly needs to exercise budgetary restraint.

The 2014 picture shows the aftermath of the storm water’s impact on Mr Drakoulis’s property. Supplied

A spokesman told Public Defender it was “sympathetic to the situation of the claimant, but as a public authority the City is unable to make any compensation payment unless there is evidence supporting a claim of legal negligence”.

Brydens Lawyers principal Lee Hagipantelis said: “It seems obvious that Section 45 is capable of proof. The council was on notice of the defect given the previous problems and the inspections that had been undertaken. I think the council also may have difficulty in satisfying the Section 42 defence.”

Lionheart Lawyers director Majed Issa said Mr Drakoulis “definitely has an argument”, however there would be a need for “expert opinion” from a person who had worked in another council assessing similar claims to show the City was being “unreasonable”.

A third solicitor, Toby Tancred, said councils knew it was usually “uneconomic” for people to pursue such matters in court.

Public Defender told the City the legal view was it was liable, but it wasn’t interested in making further comment.