The RMS system continued to provide erroneous bills, as the metro had passed a credit for water charges totalling R564 641.04 for another residential property in Tongaat in November 2021 after a complaint was lodged.
(David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
An eThekwini Metro ratepayer who experienced “bill shock” has won a protracted legal battle with the city after the Durban regional court ruled that he is not liable to pay a R329 763.31 water account.
oThongati resident Arumoogum Pillay, a lift technician, told the Durban regional court in his founding affidavit that the water bill for his 80m2 property, where he lives with his wife and sister-in-law, was usually around R150 to R220 a month for 10 to 16 kilolitres (kl) of water.
However, just months after the metro implemented its controversial new R1.1 billion revenue management system in July 2016, his bill shock nightmare began.
“In the first few months of 2016, my average consolidated metro bill for water, sewage, refuse removal and rates was approximately R700 to R900, including VAT. This includes a water charge of between R150 to R220 for water consumption,” Pillay said.
He was shocked when he received the first hefty bill of R3 187,94, including water charges of more than R2 300 for consumption of 65kl in September 2016. He immediately contacted the metro to query it.
“I was informed by a service agent at the municipal office that as the metro had changed its old COINS billing system and implemented a new RMS [revenue management system] billing system with effect from July 2016, there were hiccups with billing and that the discrepancy would be resolved,” Pillay said.
“As I was assured that this would be rectified, I continued to make my normal monthly payments [R1 200] and did not make any payment towards the extra consumption and charges.”
However, he noticed that his account continued to rise.
“My November 2016 bill reflected the current month’s charges of R6 931.74 and a total bill of R14 660.74. Alarmingly, the water consumption had now jumped to 129kl,” Pillay said.
“Worried, I again visited the respondent’s local service office … I was again told it was a system error and that the amount would be adjusted. I also reported the high bills to my local municipal councilor.”
But the charges kept rising. His monthly account was R13 866.94, of which R12 350.58 was only for 365kl of water, in January 2017.
“This consumption is 28 times my average consumption in 2016, prior to the implementation of the respondent’s controversial new billing system. By this month, the total outstanding bill was R31 662.11,” Pillay said.
August 2017’s municipal charges rocketed to R32 293.61, including water consumption of 439.88kl. His total bill was R157 082.52.
“One year after I received my first bill with a high reading, and after twice being assured … that the fault is a billing error that would be rectified, I received a total bill for R193 956.36. This included water consumption of a staggering 1089.42kl at a charge of R45 007.99,” Pillay said.
He contacted a plumber on 19 January 2018 to inspect his property for water leaks after the metro did not respond to his concerns about the ever-rising bill.
“The plumber did not find any leak … However, he did suggest that an underground water pipe be rerouted for easier access in future. I agreed to this and the work was done,” Pillay said.
The next water reading, on 23 January 2018, reflected water consumption of 411kl, followed by a reading of 22kl in February 2018.
“The next water reading was taken on 19 March 2018 and, for the first time in two and a half years, the water reading (16kl) returned to what it was before September 2016,” he said.
But his troubles were far from over. In July 2019, eThekwini Metro sent him a letter of demand for the outstanding account. He then filed a complaint with the metro’s integrity and investigations unit but received no feedback.
By April 2022, the total outstanding amount for surplus water charges had soared to R322 961.62.
He told the court that the metro had not complied with its policy for handling high accounts which requires it to immediately send a standard letter to alert a consumer if high water consumption is detected. The letter guides consumers on how to deal with the problem.
“At no stage did the respondent or its meter readers/technicians inform me of anything untoward with my water meter or readings, or that my water consumption was higher than normal. Nor had the respondent inspected and tested my meter,” Pillay said.
“It was the respondent’s failure to properly deal with the matter, when it was first brought to its attention, that led the bill to escalate to the astronomical figure of approximately R322 900 as no reasonable person in the position of a consumer would see such a high bill and not do anything about it for 15 months,” Pillay said.
“I have done all that is within my power as a consumer to have this matter addressed. But, not only has the respondent failed me at every turn, but it has also further punished my wife, sister-in-law and me by cutting off our water supply for several months in 2020 — in violation of our constitutional rights.
“It has also installed a water restrictor at my premises, reducing the flow of water to our home and causing a lot of inconvenience and discomfort. The respondent has further threatened to report me to the credit bureaus as an ‘adverse/slow payer’.”
He said he simply continued paying R1200 a month towards his monthly bill as had been his habit, although his monthly average bill was about R955, trusting that the metro would resolve the error.
Pillay added that the RMS system continued to provide erroneous bills, as the metro had passed a credit for water charges totalling R564 641.04 for another residential property in Tongaat in November 2021 after a complaint was lodged.
“The confirmation letter, which was sent in error to my legal representatives by the respondent, is attached,” he said.
Pillay asked the court to order that the surplus water charges totaling R329 763.31 from September 2016 to February 2018 be removed from his account on the basis that he is not liable, alternatively that the claim had prescribed on 21 August 2021.
He also asked that the water restrictor installed on the main water line to his property be removed and that any negative credit bureau reports be withdrawn.
eThekwini Metro filed a counter claim against Pillay asking the court to rule that the debt had not prescribed and that he owed the R329 763.31, which was payable with punitive costs. However, the court dismissed the application.
In the main application, the metro’s attorney Mzwandile Khahula argued that Pillay had not exercised any internal remedies of the metro’s credit policy such as lodging a dispute about the high bill within 21 days. He said Pillay should sign an acknowledgement of debt and pay the outstanding amount as well as interest of 7.5%.
He initially had also argued that all rates, water and electricity accounts prescribe in 30 years and that Pillay had not filed a formal dispute with the metro regarding his high water bill, which would have triggered its internal policy to deal with the matter appropriately.
Pillay’s attorney Krisendra Bisetty argued that, according to the Prescription Act, charges for municipal debt, except for rates, prescribed after three years, which Khahula accepted.
However, Khahuka countered that the points Pillay had raised in his argument indicated that he was aware of the historical debt and that his multiple payments served as the interruption of the prescription.
In handing down judgment, magistrate Patrick Madida ruled that the debt arising from the water charges had prescribed.
“The applicant made a declaration that the monthly payments were made towards monthly charges. The argument by the metro to the effect that he intended to pay off his historical debt, albeit in minimal amounts, is far from convincing,” Madida said.
“If that were so construed … it would have taken the applicant decades to pay off the debt, which would not have reasonably suited the circumstances and possibly the financial model of the metro.”
He ordered that the metro remove the R322 900 from Pillay’s account, remove the water restrictor from his property, withdraw any negative credit bureau reports it may have filed against him and pay all costs of the application.
Bisetty said the court ruling ended eight years of turmoil and uncertainty for Pillay and his family.
“It certainly came as a huge relief for them, as these massive bills have been hanging over their heads for so long. The municipality used every weapon in their arsenal to try to hold my client liable,” he said.
Bisetty advised residents with unusually high utility bills to keep written records of their interactions with the municipality and to seek legal assistance should complaints remain unresolved.