Navigating Municipal Billing Discrepancies: Expert Insights from Outa and Schindlers Attorneys

South African property owners and tenants often face the challenge of erroneous municipal billing, leading to skyrocketing charges that can cause considerable financial strain. Understanding the nature of these charges and the mechanisms available to dispute inaccuracies is critical in rectifying these issues.

During a recent webinar, Julius Kleynhans, the executive head of social innovation at the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa), along with Chantelle Gladwin-Wood, a specialist attorney in local government and property law, addressed the prevalent problem of inflated municipal bills and outlined a comprehensive strategy to challenge them.

Municipal bills encompass various charges, including property rates (based on market value), refuse fees for waste removal, sewer charges for sewage system access, and service charges for water and electricity (based on consumption). These bills also integrate bylaws and policy rules peculiar to each municipality, which are publicly accessible on respective municipal websites.

The law mandates municipalities provide services within their jurisdictions and efficiently collect corresponding payments. However, the inability to fully capitalize on this empowerment leads to service delivery setbacks, evident in unattended potholes and deficient maintenance of water and electricity infrastructures.

When billing errors do occur, they predominantly relate to high-impact charges such as electricity and water, and occasionally to property rates. Usual discrepancies include incorrect meter readings or estimations, water theft or leaks, and inaccurate property valuations used for calculating rates.

The process of disputing a bill is grounded in the Municipal Systems Act, which stipulates that consumers provide evidence to contest the bill's accuracy. This can be an onerous journey, involving various steps from telephone complaints to written queries and even appeals to a municipal manager or Ombud, especially if no resolution is reached at initial levels.

Chantelle Gladwin-Wood emphasized the importance of meticulously documenting all interactions with municipalities and adhering to their specified dispute resolution procedures. This not only strengthens the case of the disputant but also ensures the proper trajectory of the dispute, which can even protect from adverse credit control measures during the dispute period.

An overlooked aspect, as Wood pointed out, is the practice of 'consolidation of accounts'. This implies that a failure to settle any component of the municipal bill could lead to a cessation of any of the services, regardless of whether other services have been paid for or not.

To pre-empt future disputes, Outa and Schindlers Attorneys advise maintaining detailed records of all municipal interactions. This foresight coupled with a keen understanding of municipal processes can be instrumental in circumventing potential discrepancies and ensuring that municipal service provision is equitable, accurate, and legally compliant.

In summary, Outa and Schindlers Attorneys have provided South Africans with the necessary tools and knowledge to competently dispute municipal billing errors. It's imperative for consumers to be vigilant about their municipal bills, understand the charges applied, and follow through with disputes using the correct channels and procedures.