CoJ loses two more high court incorrect billing cases

The City of Johannesburg (CoJ) has been ordered to apply the applicable pensioner’s rebate to the municipal account of an 81-year-old pensioner and reverse the charges on his account from a second water meter not linked to his property.

Acting Judge Mohammed Chohan said in a judgment handed down in the High Court in Johannesburg this week that the application by David Walter Phillips is disconcerting because it involves an 81-year-old pensioner “who has had no joy in attempting to resolve his billing disputes with the CoJ”.

“That he has had to seek recourse from this court is most unfortunate and an indictment on the respondent’s [CoJ] constitutional duty and failure to timeously and properly address and resolve the dispute raised by him.”

Chohan said Phillips, the owner of a property in Randburg, had raised three disputes.

The first relates to a pensioner rebate, which Phillips said he was entitled to but which the CoJ had failed to implement, thereby resulting in an incorrect charge being levied.

The second is about Phillips being charged for water in terms of two water meters despite the second meter not being on his property or for his property.

The third complaint is about his application to obtain a prepaid meter to avoid the payment of network charges – but the CoJ finally installed a pre-paid meter about a week prior to the hearing, making “the relief sought in this regard academic”.

ALSO READ: Court ruling exposes Johannesburg’s flawed billing system

Pensioner’s rebate

Chohan said it is common cause that Phillips is a pensioner and was entitled to a pensioner’s rebate.

The CoJ, after “much toing and froing” recognised this and claims it subsequently credited Phillips’s account with such rebate, including interest that had been levied by it, with the result that this dispute had now become moot.

But Chohan said that does not appear to be the case because the amounts credited by the CoJ are inconsistent with what Phillips claimed he was entitled to.

Chohan said the CoJ, for example:

• Credited Phillips with R2 386.85 in respect of interest yet the total interest the CoJ levied was R8 823.00 and there is no explanation by CoJ for this discrepancy;
• Claimed to have credited Phillips’s account, resulting in the account having a credit balance of R6 264.81 – but the CoJ’s subsequent account dated 5 August 2024 only reflects a credit balance of R666.59; and
• Had charged Phillips R2 895.90 for four months from July to October 2023 based on an admittedly incorrect property valuation of R4 253 000 but, despite the concession, has not reversed these charges.

Chohan said the CoJ failed to address these issues in its answering affidavit and has not demonstrated that it properly and accurately reversed all the charges it had levied and subsequently admitted should not have been levied. He said it follows that Phillips is entitled to the relief he seeks in respect of the pensioner rebate dispute.

ALSO READ: CoJ criticised in another billing dispute judgment

Water

Turning to the water meter dispute, Chohan said the CoJ charged Phillips for water from two water meters between 5 June and 4 October 2021, but the CoJ denied this and claimed one meter had been removed on 16 July 2021 and presumably replaced with a new meter on 17 July 2021.

He said the difficulty with that allegation is that Phillips’s account reflects a reading period from 5 June to 4 October 2021 – 122 days – for the first meter and an estimated reading over that same period for the second meter.

Chohan said there is no explanation by the CoJ in its answering affidavit why a reading period up until 4 October 2021 was done in respect of the meter, which on the CoJ’s own version had been removed on the 16 July 2021.

There was equally no explanation why the CoJ would charge for both an actual reading and an estimated reading for the same period.

The CoJ’s only version is that the meter had been replaced with one that services Phillips’s property “but its own municipal statements belie that version”.

Chohan said this is thus not a version this court can readily accept, adding that the CoJ’s legal advisor had a responsibility to ascertain and engage with the facts raised by Phillips and to accurately and comprehensively deal with them in the answering affidavit.

He said the order sought by Phillips in relation to the water dispute is justified.

ALSO READ: CoJ’s ‘abuse of power’ lambasted in Johannesburg High Court

Full order

Chohan ordered that the property rates charges levied on Phillips’s account for January 2019 to December 2023 be set aside.

He also directed the CoJ to apply the applicable pensioner’s rebate for the same period and to credit the account accordingly.

He further ordered that the water consumption charges levied in respect of Phillips’s municipal account for the period November 2021 to December 2023 based on a specified meter be set aside and all interest debited by the CoJ on this account from July 2021 to date of the order be reversed and set aside.

The CoJ was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

ALSO READ: A basic human right? City of Joburg wins case against Midrand estate resident owing over R200k

Second case ruled on

In another incorrect billing application brought against the CoJ, Chohan this week declared that the electricity consumption charges it billed on the municipal account of BIR Investments (Pty) Ltd for a specified property that are three years older on the date of the order – including an amount of R8 726 121.00 – have prescribed.

Chohan ordered the CoJ to write off the electricity consumption charges and reverse any and all interest, legal or miscellaneous fees related to the the charges that were older than three years on the date of his order.

He further ordered the CoJ to provide BIR Investments with an adjusted statement of account reflecting these adjustments with suitable notations on the account to enable the company to check the accuracy of the reconciliation and adjustment made by the CoJ.

Chohan also interdicted the CoJ from terminating, restricting and/or threatening to terminate or restrict the supply of electricity or water to the company’s property for amounts that have prescribed.

The CoJ was ordered to pay the costs of this application.

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.