LETTER: This billing is surely rubbish, Ekurhuleni?

Darryl, Brentwood Park, writes:

I live in a complex on Kirschner Road, Brentwood Park, which has used a private company for waste collection for as long as the complex has been in existence (over 15 years).

We have never had a problem with this private company. They are very reliable.

Other complexes on Kirschner Road also use private waste collection companies. One is a large old-age home.

At the beginning of July, I noticed that we, as owners, are being charged for a wheelie bin from Ekurhuleni for waste collection.

I communicated this with my ward councillor, who was very helpful and said I should go to Ekurhuleni and query it at accounts.

I did that and was told to then go to the waste department, which I did. I spoke to a nice lady, but she said I couldn’t change it because Ekurhuleni had had an audit. They must now charge every owner for a bin. You can write your name in the book, which has a lot of people waiting for bins, by the way.

So the obvious question is, if you want us to use your service by charging us for bins, please can you provide us with a bin? We don’t have bins.

The complex we live in has 88 units. We, therefore, need 88 bins in one batch for this to be a successful switch-over from using a private company to using Ekurhuleni’s waste department.

I then wrote to Ekurhuleni, and a gentleman in accounts asked for my proof of account that we use a private company, which I sent.

ALSO READ: Residents without wheelie bins for over two months

I have heard nothing since.

Is this just another way Ekurhuleni would like to try and bully residents into giving them more money and not actually giving any service?

Just as a side note: The steel skip bins we use with the private company are strong and durable and don’t get stolen. The plastic bins from Ekurhuleni are the opposite, as I am sure residents can testify.

And another side note: The private company is cheaper than Ekurhuleni by a long shot.

This is just another example of how Ekurhuleni has failed the residents.

Editor’s note: CoE spokesperson Zweli Dlamini responded: The department has conducted an audit as part of a drive to establish if all residential properties within the city are being correctly levied. The outcomes of the audit came into effect on June 1.

This drive is informed by the provisions of the CoE Integrated Waste Management By-laws of 2021, Section 20 Subsection (2), that reads, “The municipality shall, subject to the provisions of section 9(2) of the National Environmental Management Waste Act, be the sole provider of the municipal service for the collection, transportation and disposal of domestic waste within its jurisdiction, but may appoint one or more service providers to carry out this function on its behalf.” Section 24 Subsection (1): The owner or occupier of premises is liable to pay to the municipality the prescribed fee for the provision of the municipal service in terms of the municipality’s approved waste tariff policy, and is not entitled to exemption from, or reduction of the amount of such fee by reason of not making use, or of making a partial or limited use, of the municipal service.

The CoE Waste Management Tariff Policy paragraph 6(c)(v) states that “The billing of waste management services in high-density residential property is per unit. It must further be mentioned that where the mass roll-out of 240l bins has been completed, it is the responsibility of the account holders to go to the nearest waste management depot to apply for the said refuse receptacles.

Based on policy and the legislative framework contained within the CoE Integrated Waste Management By-Laws:

• The complex on Kirschner Road is zoned as a residential property; thus, it is the CoE’s responsibility to provide refuse collection services to it;

• If, for any reason, the owner or occupants are not making use of or making partial use of the service the municipality has made available, it would not be an exemption to pay for such service;

• The refuse collection services in Brentwood Park, where the said complex is situated, have been made available in accordance with the waste collection schedule;

• The city is not at fault for billing the 88 units at the said complex because the property owner and/or occupants voluntarily decided not to use the services made available by opting to use a private waste transporter;

• The City, as guided by the provisions of the aforementioned legislative framework, maintains that the account holders at the residential complex in question were correctly levied the refuse charges, thus no reversal of said charges will be affected;

• The city will continue billing the 88 dwelling units the correct domestic tariff as per the zoning of the property.

ALSO READ: UPDATE: Metro responds to Western Extension refuse removal issues