Ratepayers in the eThekwini Municipality are up in arms over the City’s decision to claw back funds that it lost through its own technical error in the water billing department that went on for an unconfirmed number of years.
After receiving the surprise bills in December and asking them to pay back the money for three years, from 2020 to 2023, for the supposed “6kl free water," Durban residents Denise Bonnelle and Senju Govender said the City’s actions are “unfair”.
Both Bonnelle and Govender, 62, are pensioners from Newlands East and Broadlands, respectively, who rely on their children and their state pension for financial support.
Bonnelle received a bill of around R6,100 over and above her normal monthly bill, which was described as back charges for free water and sanitation.
Govender’s utility bill that arrived in December asked her to pay R7,000 extra.
“There was no communication, nothing. They just dropped this bill on us and expect us to pay thousands, and what makes it worse is that it was their fault. Why are we paying for their mistake?
“It honestly feels like we are sitting ducks waiting for the municipality to take money from us.
“I am a pensioner and live alone; my son looks after me. He is now supposed to go find another R180 extra every month just because the municipality made some mistake. That is not fair,” Bonnelle told IOL on Tuesday.
The reasoning the municipality gave for clawing back these funds was due to a technical error that allowed people with homes valued at R250,000 or under to receive six kilolitres water free every month.
The Municipality continued to give away free water for years without realising that property values had increased and those who once qualified for free water, no longer met the criteria. Now they want to be paid for the water consumed over the years.
But both women agreed that this reason did not make sense because their homes are double, if not triple, the threshold amount of R250,000 as prescribed by the municipality.
Govender, a former Department of Education educator, said she did not mind the bill, as errors can happen in such a large system. What she did have a problem with, was the way in which the municipality handled the situation, which made her suspicious of malicious intent.
“I don’t mind paying the bill. EPRM (eThekwini Ratepayers Protest Movement) engaged with the City, and they got that deal to pay R180 per month. I understand that we have to pay, but how they went about it with no prior warnings or communication does seem like something is off.
“It honestly seems like someone figured out a loophole to make money off the people and now they are taking it from us. When you really look at it, the reasons they gave did not make sense.
“On my bill, my property is valued at way over R250,000, but they still gave (me) free water. It’s not like they don’t know the market or relatable value of the property; even if it’s off a bit, they have it on the bill,” Govender said.
Govender lives in a complex where other residents also received an extra water bill in December.
The EPRM has been rallying behind residents to find solutions to the problem that was forced onto ratepayers by its local government.
IOL has also been in contact with other ratepayers affected by the December water bill fiasco, all of whom stated that they were charged different rates, despite being charged for the same amount of water.
There is also a grey area in terms of how the municipality recovered these funds when the City’s 2021/2022 credit control and debt collection policy clearly states that a debt must be considered irrecoverable if there is an error, which the City has confessed to.
Section 29.1(g) of the policy also states that the debt must be considered irrecoverable if it is not possible to prove the debt outstanding.
Given the fact that the City uses an estimation system to determine monthly bills, an exact figure cannot be derived, which is why affected residents are charged different amounts for the same volume of water.
As per the City policy, a debt can only be written off if it concurs with one or more of the criteria mentioned in Section 29.1.
“If the policy was only approved on June 7, 2022, that would mean after that date it would authorise action by the municipality. So it is confusing why they are going back to 2020,” Nisha Rajpaul from Kenville said.
Earlier this week, the EPRM met with the municipality to discuss ways forward, which is where the monthly payment plan of R180, as reported earlier, was discussed.
The City still wants the 49,000 affected residents to sign an acknowledgement of debt agreement, while the EPRM is against it.
IOL