High Court slaps COJ with cost order in seven-year billing dispute

The City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and municipal manager Floyd Brink have been slapped with a punitive cost order by the High Court in Johannesburg after “placing obstacles in the path of resolving” a seven-year dispute with an Illovo homeowner over allegedly excessive water and electricity billing charges.

Judge Mahendra Chetty said Sharise Erica Ackerman has pursued the matter against the CoJ for more than seven years, with her only purpose being to ensure that she is accurately billed for what she consumes in her home.

ALSO READ: City of Joburg hit by billing crisis

“The City’s response was one of placing obstacles in the path of resolving the dispute … [and has] been anything but one which fosters a spirit of cooperation.

“The applicant [Ackerman] has been treated in a manner at variance with the standards which the City is obliged to treat its residents.

“It cannot be accepted that a resident should have to complain for five years regarding a proper explanation for the exorbitant costs levied against her account, all the while being under threat of disconnection.”

Judge Chetty said: “In the circumstances, the applicant [Ackerman] was compelled to approach the court after her pleas for intervention fell on deaf ears. I see no reason why the City’s conduct should not be sanctioned with a punitive costs order.”

ALSO READ: Joburg pumps R25 million into app to help resolve billing issues

He added that the CoJ’s approach towards Ackerman was as if it were dealing with “a delinquent consumer”.

“She is not. Her evidence under oath that she continues to pay, on a monthly basis what she contends is a fair and reasonable amount based on what she consumes, remains uncontested. Her conduct is not that of someone seeking to avoid paying for services.”

Order

Chetty interdicted and restrained the CoJ from disconnecting/causing the disconnection/termination or restriction of the provision of basic municipal services to Ackerman’s property pending the final determination of the application and the final resolution of all disputes and queries about the municipal account for Ackerman’s property for electrical and water services actually consumed.

Judge Chetty further ordered:

• The CoJ to within 30 days of the order to furnish Ackerman’s attorney with a detailed explanation of the queries raised by her about the water and electricity charges levied against her property to enable her to analyse her accounts and respond to the city within 30 days of receipt of such reasons.
• The parties must hold a meeting and conduct a statement and debatement of her account within 30 days of receipt of Ackerman’s response.
• Pending the final resolution of the dispute, Ackerman is directed to pay R12 000 per month to the city for the deemed usage of water and electricity on or before the due date for payment of her municipal services.
• The interim interdict granted against the CoJ from disconnecting or restricting the provision of basic services to Ackerman’s home shall lapse in the event she fails or neglects to meet with the city to conduct a statement and debatement of her account, or to pay such amounts as are due.
• A counter application by the CoJ for Ackerman to be ordered to pay R100 031.91 in alleged arrears on her municipal account was postponed indefinitely.

Judge Chetty said once an explanation or reasons are tendered for the various queries raised regarding the account, the provisions of the credit control and debt collection bylaws prescribe the path towards a resolution of the dispute.

“It is not for the court to fashion, through its order, a process for the parties. That procedure has already been crafted by the City.”

‘Inexplicable, nonsensical invoices’

The judge said figures provided by Ackerman, and to which there has been no rebuttal, indicate she paid R844 717.52 between January 2019 and August 2022 towards what she contends is the reasonable costs for electricity and water utilised on her property.

ALSO READ: Eskom to take over electricity distribution and billing in struggling Maluli-a-Phofung

He said Ackerman continues to pay on average R12 000 per month, which she believes is in excess of her deemed usage, while trying to resolve an ongoing dispute with the CoJ over what she contends is inaccurate billing, based on estimates, double charges and inexplicable, nonsensical invoices furnished by the city.

Judge Chetty said the frustration leading to this application is described in Ackerman’s words.

“I am tired of having to attempt to resolve the disputes, with no end in sight, despite continued empty promises from the CoJ,” she stated.

“I have a right to accurate accounting, I have a right to have the disputes resolved, I have a right to seek judicial intervention when the CoJ fails to comply with its duties. It is important to point out that I am simply seeking a proper, intelligible statement and debatement, based along the obvious errors in the CoJ’s invoices.

“In the interim and whilst this is pending, I seek an order that my services are not terminated and that threats to do so, cease.’

The CoJ maintained it has rendered accurate invoices based on actual readings of the rate of consumption of electricity and water, and having utilised its services, Ackerman is obliged to pay all outstanding amounts as reflected on her invoices.

Chronology of frustration

Ackerman compiled a ‘Dispute Chronology’ in which each dispute logged with the CoJ is detailed in terms of dates, written proof of the dispute, and the responses, or the lack thereof, from the CoJ.

In some instances, the CoJ said it compiled invoices based on estimates and that actual readings would be rendered in due course.

Judge Chetty said estimated charges must at some point be reconciled once actual readings are taken, with the resultant debit or credit being passed on to the consumer at the end of the reconciliation process.

He said the CoJ’s assertion Ackerman has always been billed based on actual readings is in direct contradiction to the statement from its billing department.

Chetty said that in May 2018, in response to the queries raised for over a year, Ackerman received a “screen dump” from the CoJ.

Screen dump

He said Ackerman contends this document was impossible to understand, containing terms such as “IS-U Invoicing”, “Reset cleared items; ‘IS-U inv. reversal” and “Payment Lot”.

Significantly, a disputed entry of R31 039 is first described under the caption “Payment Run”, then “IS-U inv. reversal” and finally “Reset Cleared Items”, he said.

Judge Chetty said no attempt was made by the CoJ at the time when the screen dump was sent to Ackerman – or thereafter, or even in its answering affidavit – to explain these terms in any intelligible fashion or whether they relate to water or electricity charges and whether they result in the account being reduced or increased.

Consequences of ‘lump billing’

He highlighted that attempts to reconcile Ackerman’s electricity accounts resulted in “lump billing” against her account and one of the consequences of this is that a consumer is charged for electricity or water at a higher tariff than if billed on the basis of regular, accurate readings.

Judge Chetty said no actual water readings were done for almost a year and a half, with Ackerman’s water charges based on a “sliding scale” for a period of 522 days.

“The failure to carry out timeous and regular meter readings causes a consumer to be billed at a higher tariff.”

He said the difference between the tariff applicable to Step 1 being R7.14 per kl and Step 8 being R38.72 per kl.

ALSO READ: CoJ promises to write off debt to fix billing system

Chetty said subsequent inquiries further revealed Ackerman was being billed based on readings from three different meters, with the CoJ responding that one of the electrical meters had burnt out, without her reporting this to the authorities.

Ackerman pointed out that if the meter had burnt out, this curiously had no impact on the supply to her home.

Chetty said despite credits being passed against Ackerman’s account through the intervention of an attorney, the rectification of the account was still not done and, to make matters worse, she then ascertained the CoJ was billing her based on meter readings from an incorrect water meter.

He said Ackerman suspects a neighbouring property’s usage was being billed as hers – but despite bringing this to the attention of the CoJ, the city continued to demand from her the amounts contained in its statements.

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here