Johannesburg - The City of Joburg is once again being taken to court by the residential housing industry over billing issues, this time along with its water supplier Johannesburg Water Society Limited, regarding problematic sewerage charges.
Backbilling and a disputed change in the sewerage tariff structure of many inner city residential buildings has sent thousands of residents’ accounts soaring, resulting in a sewerage claim amounting to about R22 million. Similar issues are behind a court application already in place against COJ over a refuse-removal bill of R21m.
At issue is a decision by the city to bill sewerage services provided to certain blocks of flats at the higher fixed rate specified for “multi-dwellings” and to backdate this to 2018. As with the refuse-removal dispute, this is an outcome of the city’s “Revenue Enhancement Project”, in which the affected properties’ classification was summarily changed without consultation with the owners, or due and consistent consideration of how properties are differentiated. The Johannesburg Property Owners and Managers Association (JPOMA), which represents the interests of landlords and over 150 000 tenant households in the inner city, is challenging this on behalf of 60 applicants.
“This policy of billing at a fixed rate according to property type and size is completely unfair and contradicts COJ’s own tariff policy, which stipulates that the amount individual users pay for services should generally be in proportion to their use of that service,” said JPOMA general manager Angela Rivers. “Instead, the city even bills properties that are unoccupied and using no water or sewerage services whatsoever.”
According to Rivers, the tariff determination by-law makes provision for three different sewerage rates structures for “flats”, “multi-dwellings” and “private dwellings (houses)”. The multi-dwelling category is commonly accepted to pertain to complexes with separate townhouses, while flats are described in the city’s own by-laws as units within a single multi-storey building with a common entrance.
The fixed rate for multi-dwellings is almost double that for flats, with a house being charged the same as a flat when on an erf up to 300 square metres, and the same as a multi-dwelling when on an erf between 300 and 1 000 square metres.
“We now have a situation where the individual flats in a block that straddles two erven is charged at the same higher fixed rate that applies to a multi-dwelling and a house on a 1000 square metre erf. We believe this is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt by the city to fill its coffers, by targeting those ratepayers who historically do pay for services.”
JPOMA has expressed concern that in addressing the myriad of billing disputes with the city it is becoming the norm that legal action is often the only way to get resolution, at huge additional costs to the taxpayer.
Said Rivers: “Our members pay COJ over R80 million every month, yet we cannot rely on the services we pay for, and have no choice but to eventually resort to costly legal interventions. Each application that we or our members bring is opposed by the city and repeatedly delayed, running up legal costs that the taxpayer ultimately has to pay. We estimate that our two cases currently before the court will run up fees in the region of R600 000 to R800 000 each. It is a vicious cycle of responsible ratepayers being slapped with illegal claims amounting to millions, the city refusing all reasonable attempts to resolve disputes, leading eventually to costly legal actions and an unconscionable waste of taxpayers’ money when we win the case and the city has to settle with costs.
“Every year our members participate in the rates-determination process, but the issues raised are ignored, the backbilling continues, and eventually we have no choice but to head for the courts again.”
JPOMA has called for sewerage charges to be based on water consumption as stipulated by the water by-law.
Council spokesperson, Kgamanyane Maphologela, said the the City was aware of the court case.
"The lawsuit against the City for alleged overstated sewer charges remains sub judice, and no one may pre-empt the outcome by the court presiding over the matter. It is only procedural not to comment on matters still to be tested in the courts, and as a result, the City of Johannesburg will refrain from commenting until after the Court ruling."