Jan Maree, Fish Hoek
I am a member of the management committee of a homeowners’ association of a residential complex in Fish Hoek. I also act in terms of a mandate from the management committees of neighbouring complexes.
On behalf of the management committees, it is submitted that the electricity tariff policy of the City of Cape Town is discriminatory and unfair towards residential complexes and is therefore unconstitutional.
The electricity tariff policy draws a distinction between residential customers and commercial/industrial customers. The customers are defined as follows:
1. Residential customers are customers in private residential establishments where electricity is used primarily for domestic purposes.
2. Commercial customers are those not defined as residential customers and includes ... ”separately metered general lighting areas in residential complexes”.
The unconstitutionality is a result of the inclusion of separately metered general lighting areas in residential complexes within the definition of commercial customers.
As homeowners, all residents in the complex are exactly in the same position as homeowners not residing in a complex and are paying for property rates, water consumption, refuse removal, sewerage services and the electricity home user charge.
Residents not residing in a complex receive, from an electricity perspective, free lighting from street lighting maintained by the City. This is part of the service a municipality is providing to residents the costs of which are covered from the electricity home user charge and/or property rates.
Homeowners in a complex are paying for lighting areas (street lighting) too by way of installed meters.
Not only must such owners maintain the lighting equipment but must pay for electricity use at commercial tariffs as metered.
The unconstitutionality of the above is a consequence of the provision that commercial tariffs apply in separately metered lighting areas. The complexes where lighting areas are provided for do not have any commercial activity in any way. The lighting is in use for domestic purposes only, which include security measures. Security measures certainly cannot be classified as commercial activity.
The provisions certainly discriminate against homeowners resident in complexes.
An internet search has indicated that this aspect was raised by residents previously without success. Kindly take note that in the circumstances a public campaign will also be run. Court action is not excluded.
• The City of Cape Town responds: The tariff policy (approved by council) is very explicit on what a residential customer is. Anything other than residential is deemed a commercial customer and put on the appropriate tariff. Lighting on private property is the property owner’s responsibility. The homeowners’ association in this case.
Similarly with normal residential customers, the peripheral lighting on the property (for security reasons) is for the customer’s account. In this case, “general lighting” is fed from the customer’s supply and not a separated meter.
The development also benefits from the public road street lighting around the development similar to normal residential houses. The developer chose a layout where private roads etc. are required/designed. These private roads must be lit by their own infrastructure.
As it stands the homeowners’ association has three options:
· Have the general supply on a separate meter and pay the commercial tariff as current.
· Have the general supply removed, incorporate the general lighting with the supplies of the residential supplies so as to not have to pay a separate commercial account for general lighting, but the residents (who are on a residential tariff) each pay towards the general lighting that is connected to their dwelling.
· Apply for a bulk supply from the City, only receive one account from the City and do their own electricity billing administration within the development.
Related Topics: