For now, residents have to continue paying.
In July, residents noticed an additional charge of R5.70 under the name “Refuse area cleansing levy”, on their municipal accounts.
And, in September, following an uproar, the metro said it would reverse the charge.
Izak Berg, of the Independent Ratepayers’ Association (Irasa), then called the charge illegal and the DA also said that the charge was not properly communicated.
But now residents are fuming, as the charge still appears.
Having noted the error, the metro undertook a “detailed investigation” into the process to correct it.
“In ensuring that council complies with the legal framework of the Act, the administrative error will be corrected through the formal adjustment budget, which is planned for February 2014,” said metro spokesperson Mandlakazi Mpahlwa-Sigcawu.
Mpahlwa-Sigcawu said council considered the increase of refuse removal tariffs at the council meeting of May 30.
She said a refuse removal tariff as proposed in the draft budget that was tabled at the meeting, included the R5.70 cleansing levy per property, per month.
The proposed R5.70 cleansing levy was debated and council “resolved” that the refuse removal tariff be increased by 15 per cent, inclusive of the cleansing levy.
“The R5.70 levy was, therefore, implemented erroneously as a separate charge, effective from July,” said Mpahlwa-Sigcawu.
She added: “Of note is that the administrative error in implementing the tariff had no financial effect on customers’ accounts.”
We asked what the above statement means and Mphahlwa-Sigcawu replied: “What is important to note is that council is going to address the cleansing levy in the adjustment budget.
“The intention with the withdrawal of the R5.70 levy and the correction of the 15 per cent tariff increase is that customers will not be worse off.”
The City Times’ calculations in September showed that the metro is pocketing approximately R3 670 800 a month from the estimated 644 000 accounts.
Residents are now concerned that it must have accumulated a “tidy sum” in interest.
“Am I correct in assuming that since it is an illegal levy, the funds are held in a separate account (interest bearing of course) until such time as the internal and administrative bureaucracy has taken place to reverse the erroneous implementation of the levy and approve refund of all payment to ratepayers?” asked resident Jenny Phillips.
Phillips suggested that the metro needs to put oiling on its brakes to stop the charge.
“Quick to put it in, slow to take it off,” said Phillips.
Another resident, Sue Lamb, called the charge a disgrace.
“Funny thing is when I went to council to request they take the charge off and pass a credit for previous bills, I was advised they could not.
“I was told to go to the waste department to request them to issue an instruction to that effect
“I felt sorry for the official I was dealing with as his hands are obviously tied but I’m also not going to waste my fuel to drive to the waste department,” said Lamb
She said she has taken the illegal amount off.
“So now I get a bill with the new charge of R5.70 for the month, and an outstanding amount for the previous charges of R5.70, which I have taken off.”
