INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS

Adolf Kronfuss breaks down and weeps as he tells of his electricity bill battle with the City of Joburg during a hearing at the National Consumer Commission in the Braamfontein Recreation Centre. Photo: Itumeleng English

Adolf Kronfuss broke down in tears, his hands shaking uncontrollably.

He pulls out his council accounts, showing he owes almost R250 000 for electricity for a building that he owns in Bertrams, but which has been standing empty for six years.

“I used to pay about R1 000 a month for services for electricity but suddenly I started getting bills of R20 000 and R30 000 a month.

“There is no one on the premises, only a security guard, and I have installed a pre-paid meter for him,” he said.

Kronfuss attended the National Consumer Tribunal hearings on Wednesday even though his matter was not due to be heard.

He says he has been admitted to hospital twice for a nervous condition, which he blames on the council.

“Every time I go and see them, my whole body starts shaking, and the same happens every time I open a bill. I have been there so many times, and every time I get verbally abused and told to go back to Germany,” he said.

The tribunal hearings revolved around the validity of the compliance certificates issued by the National Consumer Commission against the City of Joburg.

The commission probed and upheld 45 complaints against the council, but the municipality did not comply, prompting it to be issued with compliance notices.

The council objected and appealed to the tribunal to review the notices.

It said compliance notices issued by the commission would have serious financial implications for the council, and if it disregarded only five of the 45 notices, the penalties of 10 percent of the city’s turnover would bankrupt the city.

Furthermore, if the payment of fines was not made by the council, the National Prosecuting Authority could become involved – another serious consequence for the city.

“There would be enormous invasive consequences for the council,” said attorney Michelle le Roux.

The city argued that the commission did not have jurisdiction over it, that its conduct fell outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, which came into effect only on April 1 last year; that the procedures followed were incorrect; its arguments were not valid; and that most of the complaints fell outside the timeframe of the act.

It also argued that the provision of services such as water and electricity did not fall within the scope of the act, nor did the problem of estimated bills, the non-issuing of clearance certificates and inaccurate bills, as the price of the services offered by the council was not in dispute.

The commission’s lawyer, Ontiretse Thupayatlase, asked why compliance orders should not be adhered to by the council, and if this had economic consequences for it, so what?

“It is the law and it has to be abided by. They are not abiding because there is chaos in the billing system.”

He said the commission had set up a dedicated structure – an unusual measure – because of the large number of complaints and had attempted many times to engage the council through correspondence and regular meetings.

Thupayatlase said the result was that promises were not kept and no feedback was given on complaints, with the council failing to commit to the commission’s process. - The Star

Read about changes to IOL’s article comments