Minister directs Enemalta to reverse decision on garages, flats

Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt has directed Enemalta to reverse a decision which would have seen owners of large garages linked to residences charged at commercial rates for their electricity consumption. The decision would also have considered common areas of apartment blocks as being commercial.

Replying to questions by Labour MP Joe Mizzi, the minister said in Parliament he had discovered that the person who was formerly responsible for the finance section of Enemalta had issued a directive laying down that garages which were not connected to a house were to be considered as "commercial", whatever their size. Garages which were linked to a residence but which could take more than one or two cars were also to be considered as commercial premises and charged accordingly.

Even more astonishing was a directive which laid down that common areas in apartment blocks were also to be considered as commercial as they were non-residential.

As a result Enemalta had started requesting VAT numbers when issuing its bills.

Dr Gatt said he had immediately issued an order for all this to be changed. Common areas of flats would be considered as residential unless they formed part of a block used for offices, for example. Garages, whatever their size, which were linked to residences and belonging to the same owner would also not be considered commercial.

The premise, he said, should be in favour of the honest while the corporation should check those people who it suspected were making commercial use of properties listed as being residential.

The changes would be incorporated in regulations issued through the Malta Resources Authority.

Asked by Mario Galea (PN) whether garages which were not linked to residences would be considered as commercial properties, even though they were only used to garage a car, Dr Gatt said one should draw a line.

A garage which was not linked to a residence was not normally considered as being part of a residential property but an owner who did not use his property for commercial purposes but only to garage a car could apply for it not to be considered as being commercial.

Mr Mizzi observed that the government had not followed the same argument when it raised the price of kerosene, having pushed up prices for everybody because of abuses.

Dr Gatt said the same logic had been followed. Figures published even at the time of the Labour government showed that when the price of kerosene was raised to the same level of diesel, sales dropped 700 per cent, showing kerosene was not being used for its intended purpose.

Replying to further questions by Mr Mizzi, Dr Gatt said stores were considered as commercial premises.