More CoJ billing issues raised by high court order

The City of Johannesburg (CoJ) has been ordered by the high court in Johannesburg to take several actions to address the overcharging of the joint owners of a Bellevue property for water usage caused by a faulty water meter and other billing issues.

Judge Marcus Senyatsi on Friday ordered the city to:

• Reverse the water charges to the property from 18 March 2016 until 6 November 2018.

• Take actual meter readings at the property for three consecutive months and work out the daily average.

• Reverse any/all interest, Vat and ancillary charges on the property owners’ account regarding the amounts that must be reversed/written off.

• Furnish the property owners with an adjusted municipal account showing all the reversals made regarding the prescribed charges within 14 days after the date of his order.

• Refrain from terminating or restricting the supply of any service to the property or threatening to terminate/restrict the supply of any service to the property because of any amount outstanding to the property owners’ account until this dispute has been resolved. The CoJ must provide the property owners with an undertaking stating such within seven days from the date of his order.

• Pay the costs of this court case.

This follows the joint owners of the property – Steward Barstow, Francis Barstow and Nicolas Barstow – applying for a court order regarding the items listed in Judge Senyatsi’s order.

The dispute arose from the alleged incorrect billing of the property owners’ account for water usage, resulting in the owners lodging a dispute with the CoJ in July 2017 when they noted an excessive increase in the water usage billed to their account.

The owners claimed their average water usage was between 8 kilolitres (Kl) and 11Kl per day before the meter change and that the usage spiked to over 28Kl per day after that and eventually to more than 52Kl per day during October 2016.

The average consumption peaked at 63Kl in November 2016.

The owners claimed the abnormal spike in water usage started in September 2016 when the inconsistent water readings were experienced.

Three water meters formed the subject of their application.

The first water meter was installed on 16 February 2014, and the joint owners claimed the CoJ changed this meter in March 2016, although they were still billed for the second meter until March 2018.

The owners claimed the original meter was replaced by the faulty one, which was responsible for the abnormal water usage. They also claimed that there were no leaking water pipes on their property which could have caused the abnormal spike in water usage.

A third meter was installed on 6 November 2019.

After lodging their dispute, the owners were given a query reference number but were never given an answer regarding the real reason for the abnormal water usage billing.

The owners claimed the water consumption was based on estimates, and when the actual readings were provided, they were, without reason, significantly abnormal.

The faulty readings continued for about 18 months, which resulted in the owners being billed R581 412.28 by the CoJ for water usage.

The CoJ could not provide the property owners’ attorney with the record of the job card related to the faulty meter, which had been replaced.

Judge Senyatsi said that as a consequence of this, litigation was pursued, and it was only during the exchange of pleadings that the CoJ claimed the faulty meter was removed in March 2018, long after the query regarding the faulty meter had been raised.

Judge Senyatsi said the CoJ, in its defence, said the initial meter on the property was installed on 16 February 2014 to 25 March 2018.

The CoJ further stated the second meter was installed from 26 March 2018 to 7 November 2018 and the third meter from 7 November 2019 to date.

Judge Senyatsi said the CoJ conceded that over the past years, water consumption on the property was measured by three consecutive meters and that the second meter never measured the water usage correctly.

He said the CoJ contends, therefore, that:

• The readings from March 2016 to November 2018 from the second meter should be discarded.

• The average water consumption for three consecutive months should be calculated using the third meter, and the average used to recalculate the account.

• What remains to be decided is the period the second faulty meter was on the property, which was installed in March 2018.

However, Judge Senyatsi said this is nonsensical because if the CoJ is prepared to concede that the readings of the second meter never measured correctly for the period March 2016 to November 2018, “it must be inferred that the meter was installed in March 2016 as opposed to March 2018 according to its records”.

Judge Senyatsi referred to specific sections of the Constitution regarding the objects of local government, adding that The Municipal Systems Act emphasises this.

He said this and case law “means that only where the services rendered are reflected correctly in the bill will the obligation to pay arise”.

Judge Senyatsi said it also means that to the extent that certain items on the bill are not queried, payment should be made.

He ruled that the CoJ had failed to discharge its legal obligation to address the billing dispute related to the disputed meter readings of the second meter in terms of the law.

Judge Senyatsi said this view is strengthened by the concession made on behalf of the CoJ by its legal advisor, who, in his answering affidavit, stated that the second meter never measured correctly and its measurements should be discarded entirely from March 2016 to November 2018.

“The notion that this meter was replaced in November 2018 should be dispelled.

“What can be inferred from the papers is that the job card relating to the replacement meter went missing, and the subsequent discovery of a job card purportedly replacing meter … was more likely contrived.

“This is so because as far back as July 2017, several email exchanges were made relating to the job card about the meter that had been replaced.

“The respondent [CoJ] failed to provide the replacement job cards relating to the faulty meter, which was the subject of the inconsistent high usage of water, and such use could not be supported by any leaking pipe within the applicant’s [owners’] property.

“It is not enough, as contended by the respondent [CoJ], to state that there were reversals made because these reversals were based on incorrect readings of the queried meter and were mostly estimates,” he said.