Faulty billing case rules in residents’ favour
city saying I owe R6 823.23.
On August 12, another SMS came in from the city with a full statement saying that I was being charged R8 453.57. I therefore request your assistance.
THE CITY REPLIES:
We have been updating the customer with regards to their query. The meter reader will visit the customer to verify if the meter has indeed been converted to a prepaid meter. The customer should continue to pay for other services they receive.
THE CITY of Joburg is set to appeal a landmark judgment handed down by the high court in Joburg in June which found that the onus was on the city, and not the consumer, to prove the correctness of its bills.
The matter arose between Euphorbia Pty Ltd, trading as Gallagher Estates.
In October 2003 the city installed a new meter at Gallagher Estates. It was read for the first time in March 2005 and revealed a spike of 13 times higher than the average, historic consumption. The city backdated the charges to 2003.
The company requested that the meter be tested. In February 2006, the city removed the meter and subjected it to testing by the flow operational manager, a Mr Termets, who it said was the only person legally allowed to test it.
On obtaining the results, the city advised Euphorbia that the meter was not faulty. Shortly thereafter, the city disposed of the meter for some unknown reason.
A new one was installed and this showed readings three times less than the meter that was tested, even though the business had grown.
Euphorbia continued making payments to the city based on its own calculations.
In November 2008, the city cut off the water to the premises so the company was forced to pay R5 million for reconnection. It did so under protest.
Later Euphorbia needed to get a clearance certificate for the sale of the property but the city would not issue one because of the arrears. It had to pay R11.5m to get the certificate.
The company then issued counterclaims against the city for the amounts. The judges found that the onus was on the city, and not the consumer, to prove the correctness of its meters, the measurement of water consumption and statements of account.
“It cannot reasonably be expected from the consumer, having raised a bona fide dis- pute concerning the services delivered by the city, to pierce the municipal veil in order to prove aspects that peculiarly fall within the knowledge of, and are controlled by, the city.”
The by-laws further provide that if the measuring device is found to be defective, the city must estimate the quantity of water supplied after having afforded the consumer the right to be heard.
“That, of course, the city failed to do. The city failed to discharge the onus to prove its accuracy,” they said.
The judge ordered the city to pay Euphorbia R8.12m.
Attorney Nicholas Theron said the judgment was a landmark case.
“A critical factor here was that when the consumer made the two disputed payments to the municipality it did so under protest, without waiver or abandonment of any rights and without admission of liability that the amount was due.
“Without those provisions, the onus would probably have been on the other foot, that is, on the consumer, to prove that the readings were not accurate. That’s often going to be a near impossibility when only the municipality has the legal right to test its meters and when it has control of all consumption data. So, pay nothing on a contested account without legal advice,” he said.
The City of Joburg’s spokesman Virgil James said the city’s legal team had filed papers for an appeal.
Only the city can legally test meters