The City of Johannesburg's billing crisis seems far from over, as about 7 000 account holders received a nasty surprise in the post this month.
Thousands of residents discovered that they owed the city as much as an additional R3 000, on top of their monthly bill, because they had not paid for refuse removal for the past two-and-half years. This latest billing problem has only recently been picked up by the city, after it migrated its disparate legacy systems onto a SAP platform.
Project Phakama, which saw the city move its various billing platforms onto SAP to provide a single view of its 1.3 million accountholders, at a cost of more than R580 million, has been a headache for many residents.
Johannesburg started implementing Phakama in November 2009, and completed the move in June 2010. However, thousands of Johannesburg accountholders complained about grossly over-inflated bills, inaccurate meter readings, illegal disconnections and a lack of service from the city's call centre.
The city has previously claimed to have resolved all the problems that stemmed from its migration to the SAP system.
Now, however, about 7 000 accountholders have received bills with an additional lump sum for refuse removal, which needs to be paid this month, sending many into a spin.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) argues that the latest billing fiasco is proof that the billing crisis, which affected about 65 000 residents, is far from over. The official opposition alleges the billing crisis has led the city into a huge cash crunch.
The city received a qualified audit report for the 2009/10 financial year, the latest available financial figures, after the auditor-general (AG) picked up discrepancies in its financials.
Overlooked
Revenue and customer relations department spokesman Kgamanyane Maphologela says about 7 000 accountholders were not billed for refuse for between two-and-a-half and three years, a problem the city only picked up after it finished moving onto the SAP platform.
The city uncovered the anomaly while it was moving its various databases onto SAP, says Maphologela. He says the post-implementation phase involved cleaning the data to weed out any irregularities, a process that took place between July and December last year.
However, as the city had a backlog of billing queries, which are now mostly resolved, it was not able to bill account holders until the log jam was cleared, explains Maphologela. Most of the affected accounts are for domestic properties, he says.
Maphologela explains that the city's services were previously billed individually, because of its disparate systems. As a result, the affected consumers were billed for other items, such as electricity, but were not receiving Pickitup charges for refuse removal.
Despite the fact that some amounts date back three years, Maphologela says the city cannot write off the bills, because no debt was raised. The amounts due vary between zero and R3 000, as different charges are levied based on property valuations, he explains.
Because the amounts are a tax due to government, they do not prescribe within three years, instead lapsing after three decades, says Maphologela.
Maphologela admits the city should not have billed the overdue amount without warning consumers. He says this was “unacceptable” and a breach of its customer care charter. Apologising on behalf of the city, he says affected consumers are welcome to make payment arrangements.
In terms of the Municipal Systems Act, the city is obliged to bill accountholders for the services they receive, and citizens must raise queries if they are not billed, says Maphologela. “The city is at fault for not raising the debt.”
Far from over
Patrick Atkinson, DA councillor, says the city has stated that the billing crisis is over, but problems continue to arise each month. “You can't go back and bill people... It's outrageous, it really is.”
The latest issue is “appalling” and will put people with limited cash flow, such as pensioners, under more hardship, says Atkinson. He has heard cases of people receiving statements with an additional R4 000 for the unbilled service.
The fact that the city was not aware that these accountholders were not receiving bills for rubbish removal shows how lax its controls were, says Atkinson. “It is understandable that the city received a qualified audit if basic information is not in the system.”
Atkinson alleges the city's billing mess has led to a large cash-flow crunch. “The city has literally run out of money.”
According to the AG's report, the city's financial statements “did not fairly present the financial position of the municipality with regards to revenue and consumer debtors”. The results were “subject to material amendments as a result of the audit”, the AG says.
Johannesburg did not “adequately” implement a system to make sure that revenue is billed correctly, and that corrected journal entries are recorded in the right period, says the AG's report.
Lee Cahill, founding member of the Joburg Advocacy Group, says: “Sadly, this is just another example of the fact that the billing crisis in the City of Joburg continues unabated.
“Residents continue to report both new errors on their municipal bills, as well as the fact that longstanding disputes remain unresolved,” says Cahill. She says this belies the city's statement that inherent problems in the system have been resolved and that the billing crisis has come to an end.
Share