Some thoughts on withholding rates

The issue of withholding rates is scheduled to be voted on at the coming JBRPA AGM. Since this is a complex issue, I did some research on the subject.

1. More than 200 ratepayers associations have declared disputes with their municipalities and more than 30 are currently withholding rates. The most famous case is Sannieshof.  See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18360694/Towns-in-Dispute-with-Municipalities-South-Africa-April-2009, 
   Sannieshof Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=94041694787
   
   
2. In most cases, the local residents association declares a dispute with the municipality, sets up a trust fund into which residents pay their rates (but not electricity or water charges), tenders for local small business to take over activities like garbage collection and road repair, while continuing negotiations with the municipality. Individual ratepayers must separately declare a dispute with the municipality, in which case they are entitled to withhold payment until the dispute is resolved. No municipality has taken ratepayers to court yet for non-payment, and are unlikely to do so, according to some legal advice.
   See http://www.sfbresidents.org/2010/08/11/questions-and-answers-re-dispute/
   Municipalities may not stop services to residents who have filed a dispute. See this article from the Joint Advocacy Group in Johburg http://www.facebook.com/notes/joburg-advocacy-group/important-billing-crisis-advice-for-residents/109937019082412
   
   
3. Legal opinion on the issue is divided, although there is common law support for the concept of only paying for services actually received..
   see http://www.nbusa.org/?p=429#more-429 ethics of witholding rates.
   
   
4. There are numerous reasons for declaring a dispute in the Kouga area. These are well summarised here, under the heading Which of the Issues have the KM Addressed?:
   http://www.sfbresidents.org/2010/12/23/minutes-21st-dec-2010/
   and here in more detail http://www.sfbresidents.org/2009/12/14/municipal/
   
   
5. There are several organisations in South Africa that are active in the taxation and rates area. Some references are:
   The Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa  http://www.ifaisa.org/
   Taxpayers foundation of SA  http://tpmsa.org/
   National taxpayers union http://www.nbusa.org/
   SA taxpayers association facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=372830810387
   
   
6. In my opinion, there are pro and cons to this step:
   Pros
   a. Withholding rates may lead to better governance in Kouga and improved services
   b. The prosperity of the area will improve if the facilities are correctly utilised
   c. It may lead to a greater sense of unity amongst residents
   d. Issues such as excessive rates will be addressed, reducing costs for residents
   e. Essential services likely to collapse unless something is done soon
   f. Threat of withholding taxes very effective as a means to improve existing services
   
   Cons
   a. Withholding rates may lead to collapse of services in Kouga, eg, poverty alleviation, health services, social services.
   b.  Residents must take responsibility for essential services – are necessary skills available?
   c. Residents and ratepayers association may become involved in litigation, although unlikely.
   d. Special arrangements need to be made to obtain clearance certificates when selling property.
   e. Administration of trust fund needs to be closely monitored and used appropriately. Don’t replace one corrupt administration with another.
   
   
7. Final thoughts and next steps
1. The governance situation in Kouga is bad and likely to get worse.
2. Things may change, depending on the outcome of the local elections
3. The new administration, whoever it is, must be held to the same standards expected of the old.
4. The JBRPA should get its house in order in the next few months, increase its membership significantly, and become an active force in J Bay.
5. A project to prepare the JBRPA for a possible withholding of rates should be setup. All the necessary research and planning should be done. Affiliations with other residents associations should be improved and experiences shared. The withholding of rates must appear as a CREDIBLE threat to the Kouga administration.
6. The conditions under which a rates withholding dispute may be initiated must be clearly spelt out to the public, the Kouga administration and local government agencies. If these conditions are fulfilled, then preparations for a dispute should be set in motion. An actual rates revolt should be a last step in a series of negotiations.
7. Would I join a  rates dispute? Only if I knew what I was getting into, what the risks were, what the likelihood of success might be, what the worst downsides might be. If specific conditions for improving governance in Kouga are repeatedly violated, then I would feel I had no option but to take decisive action, having exhausted other alternatives.

Some thoughts on the Jeffreys Bay Ratepayers Association

With the AGM of the JBRPA taking place on 22^nd February, I thought this a good time to stimulate a discussion on the JBRPA itself, and on the rates dispute issue to be voted on at this AGM. Obviously, these are my own personal opinions.

1. Membership
   
   Paid membership of the association is currently low (around 100 members) relative to the size of the town (around 5000 residents?).  This represents just 2% of the potential membership. Similar residents associations in the Kouga can claim up to 50% membership. I agree with Dr G Barnard that the low membership of the JBRPA is the single most pressing issue facing the association. It cannot claim to represent the opinions and interests of this community with only 2% proven support.  I would suggest that the new committee set themselves a specific membership target by a specific date. I suggest that a figure of 1,000 registered members by 30^th June 2011 would be a reasonable target. If the committee fails to achieve this target, then that committee should resign and allow a different committee the opportunity to achieve a similar target.  To quote Dr Barnard, “Only when we truly represent the community, can we talk about any of the issues that we are unhappy about.”
   
   
2. Membership Fee
   
   The membership fee is the value that the committee puts on the product it offers to members. It reflects what the committee thinks membership is worth to the residents. St Francis Bay Residents association charges R150 pa. I suggest that JBRPA sets its membership fee at R50 pa, with a 100% discount for the first 1,000 members joining.  There is very little credibility attached to a completely free facility.
   
   
3. What facilities should a residents association provide?
   
   
1. Information. Timely, relevant, useful information is, in my opinion, the best thing that a residents association can offer its members. The new website has been valuable in this regard, but can be improved. Every detail relating to Jeffreys Bay and its governance should be recorded. Budgets, IDP documents, minutes of council meetings, salaries of senior council staff, lists of outstanding and resolved issues, dates of events and meetings, online membership applications, etc.
2. Representation. The association committee represents the residents’ interests in various forums. It is critical that the association has a clear idea of what those residents’ interests are. Active discussion forums on the blog, regular polls on many topics, incoming letters and emails, regular articles on the blog and in the local press, regular feedback meetings, these all contribute to establishing the members interests. It is the job of the committee to lead these initiatives, rather than passively wait for the “apathetic” membership to comment.
3. Action. The residents association must coordinate actions on behalf of the residents. These actions might be meetings with council officials, drafting of letters, calling of meetings, answering member queries, filing disputes, organising protests. The JBRPA should be actively involved in the development of the annual Integrated Development Plan and the annual Council budget.
4. Projects. The association can setup and run numerous specific projects to accomplish specific purposes. This is an efficient way to encourage local participation without overtaxing the energies of the committee. Projects might include: Upgrading of parks, setup of sports facilities, setup of residents care groups, inspection of  beaches, etc. St Francis Bay Residents Association is involved in many community projects, for example (see http://www.sfbresidents.org/2010/12/23/minutes-21st-dec-2010/ ).
5. Advice and leadership. The residents association should undertake thorough research into matters affecting residents, form an opinion based on this research, then present this well-formed opinion to the residents for discussion and input on the way forward. The JBRPA committee must do the necessary homework. They cannot expect the majority of residents to each do this research for themselves, in order to form an opinion.  A classic example is the issue of the withholding of rates, which has many complex issues to be considered.
   
   
4. Achieving relevance
1. Increase membership
2. Provide useful information to the membership, quickly and simply
3. Take action – hold officials to account, enforce legislation, withhold payments, escalate issues
4. Cooperate with other successful entities – FEKRRA, SFBRPA, ward committees, businesses, etc
5. Set clear and achievable goals.

Agenda: Algemene Jaarvergadering -- Annual General Meeting, 2011

 ________________________ 

KENNIS GESKIED HIERMEE DAT 
DIE ALGEMENE JAARVERGADERING, 2011

VAN DIE JEFFREYSBAAI-BELASTINGBETALERSVERENIGING

OP DINSDAG, 22 FEBRUARIE 2011,

BY DIE JEFFREYSBAAI-TENNISKLUB GEHOU SAL WORD

BEGINNENDE OM 18:00

 _________________________

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE 
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 2011

OF THE JEFFREYS BAY RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION

WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2011

AT THE JEFFREYS BAY TENNISCLUB

COMMENCING AT 18:00

_________________________

AGENDA

1. Kennis van vergadering – Notice of meeting

2. Opening en Verwelkoming – Opening and Welcome

3. Toespraak: dr. Eddie Rankwana, munisipale bestuurder

Address: Dr. Eddie Rankwana, municipal manager

4. Notule van die algemene jaarvergadering gehou op 25 Februarie 2010

Minutes of the annual general meeting held on 25 February 2010

4.1 Goedkeuring – Approval

4.2 Sake voortspruitend – Matters arising

5. Voorsitter se jaarverslag, 2010/2011 – Chairman's annual report, 2010/2011

6. Finansiële jaarverslag, 2010 – Financial annual report, 2010

7. Wysigings aan die grondwet

Amendments to the constitution

8. Ledegeld, 2011/2012 en die uitbreiding van lidmaatskap

Membership fees, 2011/2012 and the expansion of membership

9. Verkiesing van bestuurskomitee, 2011/2012

Election of management committee, 2011/2012

9.1 Voorsitter – Chairperson

9.2 Onder-voorsitter – Vice-Chairperson

9.3 Sekretaris – Secretary

9.4 Tesourier – Treasurer

9.5 Drie addisionele lede – Three additional members

10. Weerhouding van eiendomsbelasting: siening van lede (Ja of Nee)

Witholding of property tax: views of members (Yes or No)

11. Vrae – Questions

12. Afsluiting – Closure

JRJ Bosch, sekretaris – secretary

2 Februarie/February 2011

Neem kennis, asseblief – Please take note

1. GRONDWET: Die voorstelle vir wysigings aan die grondwet, met motiverings, is ter insae beskikbaar by die volgende plekke:

a) die openbare biblioteek in Da Gamaweg;

b) die BP-garage in Da Gamaweg;

c) die vereniging se blog by www.jbayratepayers.com;

d) een uur vóór die vergadering by die tennisklub .

CONSTITUTION: The proposals for amendments to the constitution, as well as motivations, may be viewed at the following places:

a) the public library in Da Gama Road;

b) the BP garage in Da Gama Road;

c) the association's blog at www.jbayratepayers.com;

d) one hour prior to the commencement of the meeting at the tennis club.

2. Bring asseblief hierdie agenda en verwante stukke saam na die vergadering.

Please bring this agenda and related documents to the meeting.

Voorsitter, sekretaris en tesourier gesoek

Die Jeffreysbaai-belastingbetalersvereniging sal volgende week nuwe persone in moontlik al vier sy ampte moet kies. Die huidige voorsitter, tesourier en sekretaris, is nie weer beskikbaar nie en die onder-voorsitter moontlik ook nie. Hulle is:

• Dr Barry Vosloo, voorsitter van die vereniging. Hy het ietwat meer as twee jaar op die komitee gedien en was die afgelope agt maande voorsitter.
• Johan Thiart, die tesourier. Hy tree ná 14 jaar diens aan die vereniging uit. In dié tyd was hy voorsitter, sekretaris en tesourier.
• Japie Bosch, die sekretaris. Hy was ‘n komiteelid vir een jaar en sekretaris sedert Julie 2010.
• Dennis Richmond, die onder-voorsitter. Sy posisie is nie duidelik nie. Hy het aangedui dat hy moontlik tot die aktiewe politiek gaan toetree.

Eersgenoemde drie tree om persoonlike redes uit.

Dié ampte sal gevul word tydens die vereniging se algemene jaarvergadering op 22 Februarie 2011 by die Jeffreysbaaise tennisklub gehou. Dit begin om 18:00.

Nog ‘n lid van die bestuurskomitee, Pollie Marx, is ook nie herverkiesbaar nie.

Die volgende lede is herverkiesbaar: Jakkie Pieters en Gustav Barnard. Nie een van hulle is as voorsitter beskikbaar nie.

The nuts and bolts of rates boycotts

The Community Law Centre of the University of the Western Cape recently completed a research project on the phenomenon of rates withholding in five South African municipalities.

Briefly, the Community Law Centre defines “rates withholding” as the practice by ratepayers “of withholding their property rates and, in some cases fees for municipal services because they believe that municipalities are not delivering.” This article quotes extensively from the research report, which can be downloaded from http://www.ldphs.org.za/publications/latest-publications/latest-publications.

One of the first questions people ask when discussing rates boycotts is, “Is it lawful?” The answer is revealing: “In the same way that taxpayers cannot withhold a national tax on the basis of poor service delivery or underperformance, ratepayers cannot withhold their payments on the grounds that a municipality is completely dysfunctional.“ Further on the report states that “while the reasons motivating the rates withholding may be valid, any action not sanctioned by a court remains unlawful.”

The next question is, “All right, after we have convinced the court that we have legitimate gripes, how do we go about setting up a rates boycott?” The report identifies four distinct phases that were found to exist in all five the municipalities investigated: “First, grievances and efforts to address them are documented. Secondly, disputes are formally declared. Thirdly, rates are withheld as a last resort, and deposited into an escrow account. Fourthly, a meticulous record of the payments withheld is provided to the municipality.”

Are there other pitfalls? The report points out that the Municipal Systems Act allows municipalities “to consolidate municipal accounts and suspend any municipal service to enforce the payment of an unsettled account. For example, the fact that the ‘electricity portion’ of a municipal account has been paid does not preclude the municipality from allocating that payment to any other outstanding portion of the municipal account, such as property rates or water.” For practical purposes this means that the electricity has not been paid for. Consequently the municipality is at liberty to “implement any of the debt collection and credit control measures provided for [in the Municipal Systems Act] in relation to any arrears on any of the accounts of such a person,” which could lead to the suspension of the service in question.

Finally, what is the impact of a successful rates boycott likely to be? The report concludes that “the financial impact of the disputes is limited, but the political impact is substantial.”

Belastingweerhouding of 'n alternatief: lede moet sê

Die bestuurskomitee van die Jeffreysbaai-belastingbetalersvereniging (JBV) het ‘n geruime tyd gelede ‘n beginselbesluit geneem om nie eiendomsbelastingboikotte uit protes teen gebrekkige dienslewering deur die munisipaliteit te oorweeg nie. Hy het egter terselfdertyd te kenne gegee dat hy meer aggressiewe maatreëls sal steun indien die omstandighede dit vereis.

Aangesien die munisipaliteit die afgelope paar maande getoon het dat hy hom min steur aan talle klagtes wat plaaslike belastingbetalers- en inwonersverenigings tot hom gerig het, het die bestuurskomitee besluit dat dit tyd geword het om sy lede in verband met die wenslikheid van belastingweerhouding te raadpleeg. Hierdie aangeleentheid sal tydens die algemene jaarvergadering op 22 Februarie ter tafel gelê word. Lede van die JBV sal gevra word om twee kante van die saak te oorweeg voordat hulle ‘n besluit neem.

• Enersyds het die munisipaliteit tot dusver geen reaksie getoon op die meeste klagtes wat die vereniging namens sy lede ingedien het nie. Hierbenewens is talle bewerings van, onder andere, onbevoegdheid, wanbestuur, korrupsie, nepotisme, swak kommunikasie met inwoners, twyfelagtige tenderprosedures, wanaanwending van belastinggeld deur munisipale amptenare, welbekend. Die kersie op die koek is egter die feit dat die burgemeester en senior amptenare verlede jaar minagtend opgetree het deur laat of glad nie op te daag nie by ‘n vergadering wat die Oos-Kaapse Minister van Plaaslike Regering en Tradisionele Sake met belastingbetaler- en inwonersverenigings op Humansdorp belê het.

• Andersyds het die JBV-bestuurskomitee die negatiewe gevolge van ‘n belastingboikot reeds verskeie kere aangetoon. Eerstens bestaan die risiko dat sodanige optrede onwettig is. Daarby is die huidige bestuurskomitee kwalik daartoe in staat om die administratiewe las wat ‘n boikot sal meebring, te hanteer. Derdens bestaan daar twyfel of ‘n groot deel van Jeffreysbaai se inwoners, veral die afgetredenes, hulle met so ‘n stap sal vereenselwig. Pogings om ‘n boikot vroeg in die vorige dekade te organiseer het skipbreuk gely, waarskynlik weens ‘n gebrek aan ondersteuning deur die dorp se belastingbetalers. Les bes, die basiese munisipale dienste soos water, elektrisiteit, riolering en vullisverwydering, word darem nog gelewer. -- Dr Barry Vosloo, voorsitter

Water Boards: municipal debt now up to R1.7bn

Wat gaan gebeur die dag wanneer die Waterrade nie meer hulle verpligtinge kan nakom weens die feit dat hulle nie vir hulle dienste betaal word nie? Geen organisasie kan bly voortbestaan as die debiteure nie ingevorder word nie.

1.  Die eerste logiese gevolgtrekking is dat hulle net eenvoudig nie meer die kwaliteit water sal lewer wat hulle normaalweg lewer met ander woorde die water kwaliteit gaan ons almal se gesondheid affekteer.

2.  Die tweede gevolg sal wees dat hulle glad nie meer water sal kan lewer nie. Aan daardie moontlikheid wil ‘n mens liewer glad nie aan dink nie.

Munisipaliteite het ook eenvoudig nie meer die geld om die Waterrade te betaal nie . Ngwathe en Mafube is nie eers in staat om Eskom te betaal nie waar gaan hulle nou die geld kry om die Waterrade te betaal? Dit geld ook vir tientalle ander munisipaliteite

Voorgaande is die reaksie van mnr Jaap Kelder van die Nasionale Belastingbetalersunie op ontstellende syfers oor Waterrade wat bekendgemaak is.

'n Verklaring van die Demokratiese Alliansie (DA) in dié verband volg hieronder.

The debt owed by municipalities to water boards continues to grow. In documentation presented to Parliament by the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, it was revealed that R1.7bn was owed to water boards by municipalities at the start of the fourth quarter of 2010, with approximately R900m being debt in arrears.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) has been tracking this debt for eighteen months now, and the trajectory is heading one way: upwards. Over the same period the DA has been calling for action to be taken by National Treasury to ensure municipalities pay their debt in arrears. However, there has been no overall improvement. These debts are compromising the financial sustainability of many of the water boards, and this could potentially affect the future provision of clean water to the public as well as the ability of water boards to expand water infrastructure to areas where there is currently no access to running water.


From mid-2009 to late 2010 the debt grew by over R600m. As of 31 July 2009, R1.1bn was owed to water boards, of which over R525m was in arrears. As of the end of 2009, R1.2bn was owed to water boards, of which over R608m was in arrears. As of March 2010 approximately R1.4bn was owed to water boards, of which R704m was debt in arrears. At the end of June last year, R1.56bn was owed to water boards, of which R853bn was debt in arrears. It is evident that the arrears, that is, debt owing for more than thirty days, and in some of these cases, debt that has been owing for more than 120 days, is growing consistently. The situation is getting worse, not better.

It must be said that the problem of debt in arrears does not afflict all the water boards. Overberg Water, for example, is owed no debt that is in arrears. Amatola and Pelladrift Water Boards have relatively small amounts owing to them.

However, several of South Africa’s 13 water boards are burdened by massive amounts owing to them in arrears. For instance, Bloem Water is owed R59m of debt in arrears, Bothselo R57m, Bushbuckridge R200m, Sedibeng R232m and Lepelle Northern R288m.

The latest information provided to parliament does not provide the breakdown of which individual municipalities owe money to water boards. However, from the last reply to a parliamentary question on this subject, it is known that the ANC-run Bushbuckridge municipality is responsible for most of the debt in arrears to Bushbuckridge Water. Similarly the ANC-run Mopani District Municipality is responsible for the majority of the debt owed to Lepelle Northern Water and the ANC-run Matjhabeng municipality is the biggest offender when it comes to Sedibeng Water.

The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs must ensure that the National Treasury, which has a mandate to mediate between water boards and municipalities in terms of section 44 of the Municipal Finance Management Act, continues to pressurise municipalities to pay their outstanding debts. There should be punitive measures taken against municipalities that are tardy in paying. One small success of Treasury intervention thus far is that Bushbuckridge municipality has agreed to pay an additional R2m a month to Bushbuckridge Water to help address its long-term debt. The Department of Water has expressed frustration that the unconditional grant that municipalities receive as part of the equitable share for the provision of water to poor communities, is often being used for purposes other than settling debt with water boards.
The Department of Water has also reported that water boards with financial problems often settle their own debts before considering payment to the Department for their purchases of bulk water, as they know the Department is unlikely to legally challenge the water boards. It is evident therefore that non-payment of debts by municipalities has a knock-on effect that must surely be compromising the sustainability of the water governance network.

The considerable amounts outstanding to some water boards increase the financial risk of these water boards, and compromise their ability to engage in capital expansion projects and could compromise the provision of water to the public. Unless there is a significant intervention now, the amounts owing to water boards will continue to grow.

Minister "betaal nie vir chaos"

Kaapstad - Mnr. Sicelo Shiceka, minister van samewerkende regering (wat plaaslike regering insluit), skuld die Johannesburgse munisipaliteit byna R35 000, maar dit is onbekend of sy water en ligte, net soos dié van 16000 ander Johannesburgers, afgesny is.

Me. Vuyelwa Vika, Shiceka se woordvoerder, het gister gesê sy weet nie wat die situasie by die minister se private woning in Midrand is nie, berig Die Burger.
 .
Shiceka het nie sy selfoon beantwoord nie en nie mnr. Kgamanyane Maphologela, Johannesburgse munisipale woordvoerder oor inkomste en kliëntediens, óf mnr. Amos Masondo, burgemeester, óf die Gautengse premier se kantoor kon die vraag beantwoord nie.

“Die minister sal graag sy diensterekening betaal, maar hy gaan nie duisende rande uithaal vir iets wat onverklaarbaar is nie,” het Vika gesê.

Volgens haar is Shiceka self ’n slagoffer van die munisipaliteit se chaotiese rekeningstelsel en “gaan dit al jare lank so”.

Sy eerste navraag oor ’n buitensporige diensterekening was in 2008. In die afgelope drie jaar het die situasie nie verander nie.

“Hy het in daardie stadium skaars twee dae per week in sy huis deurgebring, maar rekeninge ontvang waarvoor die munisipaliteit self nie ’n verklaring gehad het nie. Hy het toe gedink iemand het onwettig van sy krag getap.”
Die munisipaliteit het onderneem om ondersoek in te stel, maar die minister het tot op hede nog nie ’n woord daarvan gehoor nie.

Shiceka het intussen na ’n ministeriële woning in Pretoria verhuis.

“Sy huis in Midrand staan leeg, maar die rekening loop net op en op. Hy wil ’n antwoord hê voordat hy betaal,” het Vika gesê.

Die elektrisiteit van talle Johannesburgers met soortgelyke foutiewe diensterekeninge is sedert 1 Januarie summier afgesny.

Shiceka het verlede week ingegryp en die Gautengse departement van behuising en plaaslike regering tot 18 Februarie gegee om met ’n regrukplan vir die Johannesburgse rekeningprobleem vorendag te kom. Hy wil daarna ’n nasionale ondersoek na al die munisipaliteite se rekeningstelsels van stapel laat loop.

“Munisipaliteite is so besig met rekeninge dat dienslewering verwaarloos word,” het Vika gesê.

Die Sunday Timeshet gister berig Masondo het ’n brief oor Shiceka se agterstallige skuld aan mnr. Humphrey Mmemezi, Gautengse LUR vir behuising en plaaslike regering, en me. Nomvula Mokonyane, Gautengse premier, gestuur.

Masondo en Mmemezi se woordvoerders kon dit gister nie bevestig nie, maar volgens Vika is dit “jammer” dat daar op die minister se persoonlike sake gefokus word terwyl duisende inwoners ontrief word.

Cash-strapped councils make people pay

When municipalities are cash-strapped, they overload people's accounts, lobby group Afriforum, alleged on Thursday (3 February 2011).

"City councils abuse the law which allows them to make estimates. When city councils experience cash-flow problems, the easiest solution is to overload people's accounts," read a statement from Afriforum local government spokesperson Cornelius Jansen van Rensburg, reports Sapa via News24.

The group receives complaints daily about faulty municipal service and levy accounts and has helped Tshwane residents sort these problems out.

It was starting a similar assistance programme in Bloemfontein, said Jansen van Rensburg, who believed the problem was national.

Gauteng's ANC-aligned mayors were to meet on Thursday with the billing problems on their agenda.

Debt collection agency blamed

Following vociferous complaints of incorrect billing, disconnections and an inaccessible Jo'burg Connect call centre, Johannesburg mayor Amos Masondo said this week there was "no crisis".

On Thursday a debt collection agency for the City of Johannesburg was reportedly to blame for some the problems.

"We changed IT systems and got a new SMS system. About 100 residents got incorrect accounts. We have sent them SMSs of apology and have now rectified the system," Bernard van Rensburg, director of In-Quest, was quoted as saying in The Star.

Jansen van Rensburg said lack of capacity was cited as the main reason, but their experience showed this wasn't the only cause.

He alleged that councils abused the law which allows for estimates to be given.

He joined the call for an urgent investigation by Local Government Minister Sicelo Shiceka.

Algemene Jaarvergadering: 22 Februarie 2011

Die Jeffreysbaai-belastingbetalersvereniging hou op 22 Februarie 2011 sy algemene jaarvergadering. Dit begin om 18:00 by die Jeffreysbaaise tennisklub. Dokumentasie hieromtrent is reeds aan lede gepos.

Tydens die vergadering moet ‘n nuwe bestuur verkies word.

Daar sal ook ‘n stemming wees oor voorstelle vir wysigings aan die grondwet. Dié voorstelle, met motiverings, is ter insae beskikbaar by:

• Die openbare biblioteek, Da Gamaweg;
• Die BP-garage, Da Gamaweg. 
• Dit is ook te sien deur HIER te klik. 
• Voorts sal dit ook een uur vóór die vergadering by die tennisklub onder oë geneem kan word.

Hierbenewens sal die vergadering gevra word om aan die bestuurskomitee leiding te gee in verband met die wenslikheid van belastingweerhouding.

Die vergadering is slegs vir lede van die vereniging en persone wat voor die aanvang van die vergadering lede word. Inwoners van die dorp word aangemoedig om aan te sluit.