‘POWER PLAY’: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS – UNLAWFUL DISCONNECTION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES (JHB + CPT)

Disclaimer: Rules and procedures may differ depending on the particular municipality. The below information is based on the policies of the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and the City of Cape Town (CoCT) alone, as per the City of Johannesburg’s Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy (June 2022) and the City of Cape Town’s Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy (June 2025).

Introduction

This article seeks to dissect and scrutinise the procedure that forms the foundation of the lawful disconnection of municipal services. We begin with the CoJ and thereafter deal with the CoCT.

The authority to disconnect services cannot be exercised arbitrarily and without due process. Municipal services are governed by a framework of laws that includes the Constitution of South Africa, the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“MSA”), and specific municipal by-laws and policies, which aim to balance the city's interest in ensuring payment for services rendered with the constitutional rights of residents.

Proper procedure

If one receives an account from the municipality that one does not agree with, it is imperative to lodge a query as soon as possible. Once a customer’s account becomes due and payable, and they have not queried and/or disputed a charge, the 30 (thirty) day clock starts ticking (dealt with below).

CoJ queries/disputes

The CoJ’s Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy requires that if customers dispute the correctness of an account and/or a specific charge on the account, they must lodge a query telephonically with the city via the Call Centre, and/or attend to their nearest Customer Service Centre.

If after 30 (thirty) days from the time the query was logged, the query has not been resolved, the customer may declare a dispute by lodging a written query setting out:

• the nature of the dispute; and

• which service the dispute pertains to.

This written dispute may either be emailed to the city, sent via the e-Joburg portal and/or delivered in person to one's nearest Customer Service Centre. The city will thereafter investigate the issue and if satisfied that an issue exists, adjust the account accordingly.

If after 90 (ninety) days from the day the query was logged, the issue has still not been resolved and/or the customer does not agree with the city’s decision, the customer may either appeal the decision or record the failure to make a timely decision with the City Manager, and/or refer the query/dispute to conciliation/mediation at the office of the city’s Ombudsman.

When writing an appeal letter to the City Manager, it is important that one address the letter specifically to the City Manager and explicitly state that it is for the purpose of appealing a decision or that it is for the purposes of recording that no decision has been made within 90 (ninety) days.

The Courts have historically taken issue with the City Manager’s unresponsiveness, provided that the customer has complied with the abovementioned procedure.

Disputed vs undisputed charges

It is important to note that a queried/disputed charge does not in any way absolve the customer from paying the undisputed amount on a municipal account. It would be advisable to continue to pay the average monthly amount ordinarily due to the city, whilst the query/dispute is pending.

Payment of the undisputed portion of the amount is a requirement for the query/dispute to be valid and in terms of Section 102 of the MSA, it is unlawful to disconnect municipal services when there is a dispute lodged on the account.

That being said, if one does not log a query/dispute prior to paying the undisputed portion, the city has the right to allocate one’s payment towards the disputed portion of their account, which (depending on the amount) may render the query/dispute settled. Customers are advised to place the fact that the payment made is to be utilised towards the undisputed amount alone, in writing.

Failure to pay the undisputed portion of a municipal account within 30 (thirty) days triggers the disconnection procedure (described below).

Disconnection procedure

The law provides for the disconnection of municipal services, provided that proper procedure has been followed.

If one fails to settle their municipal account within 30 (thirty) days, the city will issue a Pre-Termination Notice (and charge the customer for having to issue said Pre-Termination Notice).

Failure to comply with the Notice within the time frame stated therein, which is typically either 14 (fourteen) days or 7 (seven) days, will result in the city disconnecting a customer’s municipal services. The cost of the disconnection and eventual reconnection will also be added to the customer’s account.

It is unlawful for the city to disconnect your municipal service without adhering to correct procedure, as set out above.

But what about the CoCT? Is it the same as the CoJ?

A noticeable difference between the CoJ and CoCT policies is that the CoCT places an emphasis on payment arrangements, indicating a willingness to engage with customers prior to simply resorting to disconnecting municipal services.

The Credit Control and Debt Collection Policy requires customers to effect payment of their municipal account prior to the due date shown on the account. The city specifically warns that interest will be charged on overdue accounts.

Should customers fail/refuse to settle their municipal account prior to the due date, and/or if they fail to enter into a suitable payment arrangement with the city, the city may issue a Notice warning of an imminent restriction, disconnection or discontinuation of services after 14 (fourteen) days from the date stated on the Notice.

Should the customer furnish payment following the disconnection of their services, the Policy explicitly states that the burden is on the customer to request the reconnection of services and provide sufficient proof that their account and additional charges have been paid, or that a payment arrangement was entered into.

The reconnection of services is subject to the city’s capacity to attend thereto and must be completed within a reasonable time. However, the term “reasonable time” has not been defined in the policy and is subject to a wide interpretation.

Payment arrangements

When negotiating payment arrangements, the customer may be required to prove their income, which would typically impact the calculation of their ability to repay their arrear account.

Debts older than 3 (three) financial years may be written off when debtors enter into payment arrangements, on the condition that the debt will be reinstated if the customer defaults on the payment arrangement.

However, the Policy explicitly states that no payment arrangements will be made for a period longer than 12 (twelve) months. This is because the Policy is reviewed annually and payment arrangements are specifically subject to the Policy. Arrangements spanning over a period of more than 12 (twelve) years, will be reviewed in accordance of the terms contained in the updated Policy. Failure to enter into a new payment arrangement after the 12 (twelve) months will result in the debt becoming due and payable.

CoCT queries/disputes

Should a customer disagree with a charge on their municipal account, the customer may raise a query at one's nearest Customer Service Centre, via the City’s Call Centre or by way of written correspondence.

When querying an account, the customer must furnish proof of identity, all active account numbers with the city, direct contact numbers, postal and e-mail addresses and any other relevant particulars. If the customer is represented by an agent, the agent must also furnish proof of identify and proof of their appointment.

Raising a query interrupts the city’s debt collection procedure until such a time as the query is resolved.

However, similar to the CoJ’s Policy, customers are not absolved from paying their municipal accounts following a queried account. Customers are still obligated to either pay the undisputed portion of their account, or the normal average amount of their account.

In the event that a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of a query, one can take the matter further by declaring a formal dispute. This dispute must be raised with the Municipal Manager within 21 (twenty-one) days of being notified of the decision. NB: The onus is on the customer to obtain an acknowledgement of receipt in terms of any correspondence lodged with the city.

Case law

In the case of SS Geranium Mansions v The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another, heard this year (2025), the Court criticised the municipality for not adhering to their own policies and disconnecting municipal services prior to the timeframe listed in the Pre-Termination Notice running out. The Court ordered that the Applicant’s services be reconnected, and the municipality was interdicted from attempting to disconnect the Applicant’s services prior to the main action being heard. In addition, the Court awarded a punitive cost order against the municipality for its unlawful disconnection.

Conclusion

The CoJ and CoCT must adhere to strict legal procedures before disconnecting municipal services to ensure that the process is fair and lawful.

Consumers have the right to be properly notified and given an opportunity to dispute any outstanding accounts or alleged breach before any disconnection occurs. If you believe your municipal services have been unlawfully disconnected, it is crucial to act timeously by lodging a formal dispute with the municipality.

Understanding your rights and the municipality’s obligations can help you protect yourself from unfair treatment and avoid unnecessary hardship. Ultimately, enforcing these protections encourages transparency and accountability, ensuring that municipal services are provided in a lawful and reasonable manner to all customers.

In the event that the municipality unlawfully disconnects your municipal services in contrary to the aforesaid procedure, contact our offices at info@rouxlegal.com to seek legal guidance.

By Clarisse Scheepers

(Candidate Attorney)

21 October 2025

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this article, neither the writer/s of the article nor the publisher shall bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information and/or recommendations contained herein. The URA article material is for informational and educational purposes only.

This content is the property of URA. Whilst we encourage the sharing of our content for informational purposes, if you wish to copy and/or reproduce our content on your own platform and/or website, kindly ensure that proper credit is given to URA.