eThekwini Ratepayers say Municipality never kept to commitments on free water billing error

The eThekwini Municipality did not keep to some of the agreements it made during a meeting between the EPRM and DWS on January 11, 2024, including rectifying bills over R6,000, according to the EPRM. Picture: Jehran Naidoo / IOL

The eThekwini Municipality did not keep to some of the agreements it made during a meeting between the EPRM and DWS on January 11, 2024, including rectifying bills over R6,000, according to the EPRM. Picture: Jehran Naidoo / IOL

Published Jan 30, 2024

Share

The eThekwini Ratepayers Protest Movement or EPRM says that the eThekwini Municipality is moving with speed to have ratepayers affected by the free water billing error sign acknowledgements of debt (AOD) without consensus being reached in some cases.

Chairman of the EPRM, Asad Gaffer said the Municipality did not resolve the cases where some affected ratepayers were charged more than R6,000 for the free water they received between 2020 and 2023.

Gaffer also said the City acted against its own policy for Credit Control and Debt Collection.

The 2023/2024 edition of the policy indicates that debt accrued as a result of an administrative error should be classified as irrecoverable.

“As the ratepayers association, we are saying that this is pre-empted. We have not reached any resolution. They have not identified those people who have been charged more than R6,000.

“If you sign an AOD and you owe more than R6,000 you will be signing for the full amount.

“The City has not acted in their (ratepayers) interest and not kept to its commitments.

“We have until the end of March to reach an agreement and should we not, we have no problem going the legal way,” Gaffer said.

Gaffer also said the City was acting against what its policy of debt.

The EPRM’s comments come as the Municipality this week released a statement indicating that the 49,000 residents affected in the free water billing error must sign an AOD and settle the debt by making the R180 per month payments over a 36-month period.

The Municipality said that residents affected by their error must visit the Sizakala Customer Care Centre to sign this agreement.

“The above conditions only apply to customers who were affected by water billing adjustments. Should customers fail to visit our Customer Service Centres and enter into a payment plan on or before the deadline, credit control and debt collection measures will come into effect,” spokesperson Gugu Sisilana explained.

The Municipality made no mention of the bills in excess of R6,000, which were going to be addressed by the Municipality, according to Ian Govender from the Business Unit of the Department of Water and Sanitation.

Govender met with the EPRM on January 11, during which it was agreed that DWS was going to address the bills that exceeded R6,000, as there was no way to justify how some people affected by the error received such large bills.

The City back-charged for three financial years, starting in June 2020 and ending in July 2023, after it gave away free water through its indigent policy for years without noticing.

This allows people with homes valued at R250,000 or less to receive six kilolitres of water free every month.

But the City gave away free water, regardless of the value of homes and then asked those 49,000 people to pay for its error.

The City was aware of this after the Auditor-General picked up that the Municipality was losing millions of rands in revenue because it gave away free water.

During the January 11 meeting, a number of concerns raised by EPRM were going to be addressed, according to Govender, but just over two weeks later and it appears as though the City is forging ahead without delivering on its word.

The DWS employee also said that a designated team within DWS, separate from the Sizakala Customer Care Centre, will be set up to deal with the free water dilemma.

This was also not done, Gaffer confirmed.

Govender confirmed in the meeting that any bill over R6,000 would be rechecked by the municipality, as it was unjustifiably large, given that all affected parties were charged for the same amount of water.

When EPRM asked him why the City went against its policy, Govender said the policy on debt recovery “is open to interpretation“.

IOL