A Tongaat homeowner who squared off against eThekwini Municipality over a massive water bill has emerged victorious.
In a widely hailed court ruling that is expected to impact ratepayers as well as the municipality’s debt collection policies, the Durban Regional Court has ordered eThekwini to remove surplus water charges totalling approximately R322 900 raised against Arumoogum “Reggie” Pillay’s municipal account.
The city also has to remove a water restrictor installed on his property in Tanzamite Close, Bellgate, and withdraw any negative report concerning him to any credit bureau.
The court also awarded legal costs in Pillay’s favour and dismissed the municipality’s counter claim against him with costs.
The lift technician took the municipality to court, arguing he was not liable for the water charges because he could not have consumed so much water, and there were no water leaks on his property.
He blamed the city’s controversial Revenue Management System (RMS) for the billing errors, which started just weeks after the multimillion-rand RMS was implemented in 2016 to replace the old Coins billing system.
His lawyer argued even if there were such a debt, it had long prescribed and the municipality had no right to claim it after the lapse of three years.
In the first few months of 2016, Pillay’s average bill for water, sewerage, refuse removal and rates was about R800 per month, including VAT.
This included a water charge of between R150 and R220 per month for water consumption of between 10 kilolitres (kl) and 16kl.
“On or about September 2016, I was shocked to receive a bill of more than R3 000, which is more than 5 times my previous bills, and immediately contacted the municipality’s office in Tongaat to query it,” Pillay said in his affidavit.
“I was informed by a service agent at the municipal office that as the municipality had changed its old Coins billing system and implemented a new RMS billing system with effect from July 2016, there were hiccups with billing, and that the discrepancy would be resolved.
“As I was assured that this would be rectified, I continued to make my normal monthly payments and did not make any payment towards the extra consumption and charges.”
By August 2017, the current month’s municipal charges rocketed to R32 293.61 and water consumption of 439.88kl. By then the total bill was R157 082.52.
In January 2018, having received no feedback from the municipality, Pillay contacted a plumber, who did not detect any underground leaks. While his water readings returned to normal in February 2018, by April 2022, he was still faced with a bill of R322 961.62.
Pillay also lodged a complaint with the City Integrity and Investigations Unit in July 2019.
“To date, my complaint has not been addressed and I have not had any feedback from the respondent or its ombud,” he said.
“I have done all that is within my power as a consumer to have this matter addressed. But not only has the respondent failed me at every turn, but it has further punished my wife, sister-in-law and me by cutting off our water supply for several months in 2020 – in violation of our constitutional rights. It has also installed a water restrictor at my premises, reducing the flow of water to our home and causing a lot of inconvenience and discomfort.”
Pillay added: “It is unconscionable that a so-called ‘caring municipality’, as the respondent often describes itself, would allow alleged debts for water to accrue for so long and to such astronomical amounts, leaving me close to having a nervous breakdown faced with such a massive bill.”
Pillay’s lawyer, Krisendra Bisetty of Bisetty Attorneys, argued that at no stage did Pillay acknowledge that he was liable for any amount in excess of his normal bill for water consumption, and that any he only paid what he estimated to be his current normal charges. The municipality’s customer records were also in disarray, he said, pointing out various discrepancies.
He said it was not the duty of the consumer to read meters and determine their actual consumption. As a result, a consumer would not be considered to have acknowledged a debt when the municipality had failed to provide details.
The municipality’s lawyer, Mzwandile Khahula, claimed Pillay failed to exercise any of the internal remedies/rights in terms of the city’s credit policy.
And by paying his account, it was acknowledgement of debt as their policy was that all payments go first to historical debt, not current charges unless the customer specifically stated in writing that he was making payment towards current charges only, he argued.
However, Bisetty countered that these provisions were internal debt control mechanisms and not law. And not everyone had access to computers and the internet to access the city’s policies.
He pointed out that if the city’s own senior managers were not aware of the policies, it was unreasonable to expect ordinary ratepayers to know of them.
The court found that the alleged debt had indeed prescribed.
“The applicant made a declaration that the monthly payments were made towards monthly charges. The argument by the metro to the effect that he intended to pay off his historical debt, albeit in minimal amounts, is far from convincing,” magistrate Patrick Madida said.
He added that the municipality’s internal processes and credit policies were administrative issues related to the conduct of the business of the municipality “and therefore falls short of being classified as law, the ignorance of which is not excusable”.
A relieved Pillay said he and his wife had had sleepless nights because of the high bills.
“Our stress levels rocketed and we had to seek medical assistance. We sought the assistance of Vigie Padayachee who runs a campaign called, ‘Stand Up Speak Out’.
“She did some research and found gross negligence on the part of the municipality. She then engaged Mr Bisetty, who also viewed my case in a positive way. This gave me some hope of victory. Mr Bisetty also dug deeper, and today I am most relieved, as he never gave up on our matter. We are so grateful for our victory. We want to encourage those saddled with such issues to stand up and speak out.”