The City of Tshwane (“COT”) has reinitiated its once highly publicized campaign which was referred to as #Tshwane Ya Tima, a campaign which was aimed at recouping allegedly R17 billion rand owed to the COT (at that time) by various commercial enterprises, government departments, embassies, homeowners associations, body corporates and general homeowners.

The COT’s approach has also been adopted by various other municipalities. The approach takes the form of the municipalities through its respective personnel or appointed contractors visiting numerous residents and customers demanding payment of outstanding accounts failing such payment the municipalities and its contractors would often with little to no notice to customers terminate and/or disconnect municipal services to “nonpayers” which is usually in the form of electricity or water disconnections.

The COT and other municipalities are probably owed millions if not billions in unpaid municipal services. This is not in dispute or the issue at hand. The issue is simply the conduct of the municipalities which is likely arbitrary and unlawful. Municipalities must operate and function within the parameters of the law.

Following the Public Protector Report No 35 of 2021/22 – A Report on an Investigation into Allegations of Systemic Administrative Deficiencies Relating to Electricity, Water, Billing and Other Services in the City of Tshwane, it confirmed and established that numerous residents/ customers and service(s) users had filed complaints and/or lodged disputes relating to their respective account and incorrect billing by the City of Tshwane. The complaints/disputes lodged vary in spectrum but mostly lay within the following categories – bill (invoice) reflecting incorrect account number, incorrect reading of meter(s), unsubstantiated estimation in meter reading, perpetual failure to read meter, failure to update internal systems that some residents have installed prepaid metering, unilateral increase in valuation of property therefor increasing rates payable, failure to bill and to issue invoice(s) to correct customer. The list goes on.

In one interesting case cited by the Public Protector, the COT estimated one customers water consumption for the period between 29 June 2018 to 2 April 2019 and levied a water bill of more than R140 000.00. During such period COT failed to take any meter readings whatsoever and relied purely on estimations. Furthermore, the water meter was old and defective. A new meter was installed, and the average monthly readings were then used to determine previous water consumption. This resulted in the bill decreasing to just R4000.00.

In terms of section 102 of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the Act”) a municipality may take the following action (in cases where customer owe the municipality):

• Consolidate any separate accounts of persons liable for payments to the municipality;
• Credit a payment by such a person against any account of that person; and
• Implement any of the debt collection and credit control measures provided for in this Chapter in relation to any accounts of such a person. This includes the disconnecting of services.

However, section 102 (2) of the Act clearly states that the municipality is barred from taking the above action including cutting of electricity in instances where a customer has lodged a dispute concerning any specific amount claimed by the municipality. In other words, the municipality may not proceed to disconnect any of its services pending the finalization of the said dispute. In the event that the municipality notwithstanding the dispute proceeds to disconnect service(s) such action would be in contravention of the Act and its own control policy and by-laws. This would render the municipality’s actions unlawful.

In this regard, one can request to resolve a dispute in terms of section 95(f) read together with section 102(2) of the Act by completing a form found on the COT website and sending it to the dispute department or alternatively the finance department. Section 95(f) provides persons with the right to query or verify municipal accounts and provide for appeal procedures which allow such persons to receive prompt redress for inaccurate accounts. The procedure followed may differ from municipality to municipality but substantively remains the same.

Apart from section 102(2) of the Act, municipalities are also required to provide advance written notice of termination to residents prior to any disconnection. This was confirmed in the Constitutional Court case of Joseph & Others v City of Johannesburg & Others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) (hereinafter “Joseph”) where the Constitutional Court had to establish whether the municipal service provider could lawfully disconnect the electricity supply to leased residential premises without giving the tenants, and not just the landlord with whom the service provider has a contractual relationship, a pre-termination notice and a hearing. In the Joseph judgment, there was no written notice of termination and thus the respondent failed to give notice to the applicant in this regard. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court declared the termination of the electricity supply to be unlawful and the Respondents were ordered to reconnect the electricity supply. The Joseph case places further obligations on the municipality to provide not just the owner with a pre-termination notice but to also provide such notice to the tenants themselves.

It is of high importance that residents or customers who have issues or queries with COT or another municipalities billing on their respective accounts must lodge a formal dispute in terms of section 102 (2) of the Act. The municipality is required by law to undergo an investigation into the dispute lodged by the customer and to provide a report or outcome of the said dispute.