Dear PC on COGTA, The principle of not charging for services that have not been provided is enshrined in the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (MSA) and Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 (MFMA). The MSA mandates providing services in a manner that ensures all residents have access to basic municipal services and are not billed for services that have not been rendered. The MFMA provides the accountability framework for municipal finances, ensuring funds are used appropriately and billing practices are fair and transparent again asserting that there should be good faith in the spirit of social development, righting the wrongs of the past, and championing fair and sustainable access to services.

The CoJ, through its policy of charging estimates that are beyond what clients use or can afford and then being opaque through its use of bullying tactics to force defaulters into blindly signing Acknowledgments of Debt where allocation of funds paid does not take reversal of incorrect and erroneous charges into account is contravene Chapter 7 of the Constitution. The CoJ administrators or officers have broken the law by charging for services that have not been provided in the past and continues to do so in spite of past judgements.

By precendent:
There is no obligation on a resident, customer or ratepayer to pay the municipality for a service that has not been rendered (Rademan v Moqhaka Municipality 2013 (7) BCLR 791 (CC) at para 42).

Section 95 of the Municipal Systems Act imposes specific obligations on municipalities regarding the charging of municipal services. In particular, municipalities must:

[53.1] Take reasonable steps to ensure that service consumption is measured through accurate and verifiable metering systems;

[53.2] Provide regular and accurate accounts to individuals liable for payment, indicating the basis for calculating the amounts due;

[53.3] Establish accessible mechanisms for querying or verifying accounts and metered consumption, coupled with appeal procedures allowing for prompt redress of inaccuracies; and

[53.4] Implement accessible mechanisms for addressing complaints, ensuring prompt responses and corrective action by the municipality.

In Euphorbia (Pty) Ltd t/a Gallagher Estates v City of Johannesburg [2016] ZAGPPHC 548 (17 June 2016) from [10] to [17], the court held that:

“[I]n the absence of special circumstances, considerations of policy, practice and fairness require that the City is saddled with the onus of proving the correctness of its meters, the measurements of water consumption and statements of account rendered pursuant thereto. It cannot reasonably be expected from the consumer, having raised a bona fide dispute concerning the services delivered by the City, to pierce the municipal veil in order to prove aspects that fall peculiarly within the knowledge of and are controlled by the City… It accordingly raised a bona fide dispute as to the City’s billing in regard to the services, and the City bore the onus to prove the correctness thereof.”

Those officers making such policy decisions must be prosecuted because the funds that are paid for delinquent accounts are also disappearing from city coffers.

The CoJ Billing department is patently criminal in its conduct. The frameworks provisioned by the Municipal Systems Act and other acts provisioned by Chapter 7 have failed. There is a mass commission of fraud in the city. Some residents who have paid the 50% down payments have never seen that money appear on their accounts. Once you sign that acknowledgment of debt your money is gone but your estimates on your bill will keep escalating until you cannot afford to ever even make an arrangement.

Who in parliament has seen cause to intervene in the gross criminality going on in the City of Johannesburg and not acted - you are complicit by ommission? You cannot, as a government, charge for services you are not providing. This is fraudulent and the officials are criminally liable as the measures amount to a general if not indirect conspiracy to defraud residents.
Section 154 of the Municipal Systems act says that local governments, the COJ specifically, should put ever more advanced systems in place to better serve the people but why is the electronic billing that was put in place now defunct? Why can't billing be automated through smart systems that are 5G or HSDPA enabled?
Regulation should outlaw illegal practices, including estimates that are charged after service disconnection. We need online platform that facilitate easy access to information, and dispute lodgement and resolution, and we also need transparent and accessible processes and systems that would aid the reversal of erroneous metering and bills. We would also like to see your investigation into the criminal practices and the failure of the frameworks provisioned by Chapter 7, the Systems Act, and MFMA, lead to the establishment of a better legal framework with regulations.