By Chantelle Gladwin-Wood (Partner),
and Michelle Venter (Associate)
30 July 2024
Water Works and Power Plays: Meter Tampering in the City of Johannesburg
INTRODUCTION
Meter tampering, the sneaky art of tweaking utility meters to bend the rules, is a serious criminal offence that the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (“the City”) doesn’t take lightly. But what happens when things go wrong and the customer is wrongly accused of having tampered?
There is an emerging trend of penalties being wrongly imposed on customers for alleged meter tampering, where it turns out that the customer was not guilty of tampering.
In this article, we will dissect what meter tampering is all about, explore the legal labyrinth it entails under the City’s watchful eye, and uncover the penalties that could zap you into compliance faster than a power surge. We will further analyse what is lawful and what is not when it comes to the City imposing penalties for supposed “non-compliance”.
DEFINITION OF METER TAMPERING
Meter tampering isn’t a nifty trick to save you a few bucks on your utility bill. It’s a criminal offence that could land you in jail, because it is the illegal fiddling of metering devices, whether by physical alteration, or any other means to mess with the system.
City Power has defined meter tampering as “any action that results in the breaking of a seal; opening‚ adjustment or removal of a meter; bypassing a meter; opening of a meter box; or interfering with the meter or municipal wiring‚ piping or any other installation in any manner whatsoever.” ¹
Tampering is an activity that includes altering, cutting, disturbing, interfering with, interrupting, manipulating, obstructing, removing or uprooting by any means, method or device an essential infrastructure, or component of the essential infrastructure, which provides a basic service.²
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN JOHANNESBURG
The City’s got rules – lots of them – when it comes to how electricity and water distribution is handled. The City’s Water Services Bylaws and Electricity Bylaws lay down the law on everything from what is considered as “non-compliance”, to what happens when you get caught with your hand in the metaphorical utility cookie jar illegally tampering with meters.
WHAT IS PROHIBITED?
Section 20 of the Water Services Bylaws³ provides as follows:
Likewise, section 6 (3) and sections 22 – 23 of the Amendments to the Standardized Electricity Bylaws 20004 provide as follows:
And, if you thought you could tamper your way out of paying your fair share, think again. The City’s not pulling any punches when it comes to meter tampering. Below are the consequences you could face if you are found to have tampered with your water or electricity meter.
REPERCUSSIONS OF METER TAMPERING
Disconnections, fines, lockups, you name it – if you’re caught tampering, there’s a price to pay.
THE SYSTEMS ACT
In terms of section 112 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 20005 below, tampering can be criminally prosecuted.
WATER SERVICES BYLAWS
Section 119(1) outlines additional circumstances which may be viewed as “offences”, mostly in relation to unsuitable conduct when dealing with designated officers of the City. What is important to note in respect of meter tampering specifically, is section 119(1)(l) – (n) which stipulates that it is an offence to:
It follows that because it is considered an offence to contravene any provision of the Water Services Bylaws, the sanctions as imposed by section 119(3) below, would apply to meter tampering as well.
ELECTRICITY BYLAWS
The Electricity Bylaws, specifically sections 15, 36 and 38 dictate penalties for contravention with the bylaws such as criminal prosecution and the imposition of fines. These are further outlined below:
It is clear from the provisions above that tampering with your supply meter is like playing a high-stakes game of City roulette – except instead of a bullet, you might just find yourself facing a fine and a stint behind bars contemplating life’s “watt-ifs”.
CAN COJ LEVY A FINE FOR ALLEGED METER TAMPERING ON MY MUNICIPAL ACCOUNT?
First and foremost, it is clear from the above that fines and/or imprisonment for breach of a bylaw can only be imposed upon conviction by a court (which is usually a municipal court but can also be a Magistrate’s or High Court). Fines added before a court has convicted you, are simply not lawful.
Due to the significant impact of imposing fines on individuals (and often times, quite hefty fines at that), the law mandates a strict interpretation in favour of the accused person, i.e. that the City is obliged to follow due process in pursuing conviction through our courts first, by proving that such person is indeed guilty of the alleged offence. Municipalities often attempt to disguise fines as other types of charges that they are lawfully allowed to impose, without securing a conviction against an offender beforehand. This is unlawful.
A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME?
Sometimes the City imposes fines on customers in the sundry section of their invoice, rather than in the “electricity” or “water” portion of their invoices. Again, this is unlawful. The City does not have the relevant power in law to validly impose these “fines” before the customer has been convicted.
IF I WAS FOUND GUILTY OF METER TAMPERING, WHERE WOULD I HAVE TO PAY A FINE IMPOSED BY THE COURT?
In terms of section 113 of the Systems Act, fines must be paid into the Revenue Fund of the local municipality if they were recovered in terms of offences created in item 2 of schedule 4 of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999. If they are fines from other bylaw breaches, they are paid to the local prosecuting authority.
TREND OF WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS OF TAMPERING
A trend seems to be emerging from an increasing number of cases reported to HBGSchindlers, in which a customer who has not bypassed or tampered with a meter, is being accused of doing so. Naturally, in the cases that we are aware of, when this is raised with the City the response is “of course the customer would say that, but they are lying” and so the City officials do not offer any assistance at all to these victims.
COULD THE CUSTOMER BE TELLING THE TRUTH?
There is a specific modus operandi emerging from the reports received. It seems to happen more commonly in the case of water meters, than electricity meters.
In the majority of cases we have heard about, the City’s Joburg Water or City Power contractors deliver a pre-termination notice to the customer warning them that they are going to terminate supply for non-payment of arrears. A few days later (or sometimes, bizarrely, even on the same day) the City’s contractors will deliver a letter to the customer saying that they (the contractors) terminated their (the customer’s) supply, due to the unpaid arrears.
However, there is no actual cut off performed by the contractor – the services remain connected. A few days later, again, the customer receives a notice from the City or its contractors, or sometimes even JMPD, this time claiming that the customer has illegally by-passed the meter by reconnecting him/her/itself illegally after the disconnection of the supply (which, as above, never actually happened).
The customer is then accused of meter tampering and receives a notice saying that a hefty fine (of some twenty thousand or so rand) will be imposed upon them. This charge then appears on the customer’s invoice a few months later. If the customer does not pay, the City then cuts the customer off.
The irony of this scheme – the City is cutting the customer off for non-payment of amounts charged for illegal reconnection, when there was no cut off in the first place.
It’s the perfect scheme – when a customer disputes that they unlawfully reconnected themselves, the City’s response is that “our systems contain no record of a reconnection instruction after the disconnection instruction is given”. This response is no response at all – however – if the services to the property were never disconnected in the first place!
Commonly the customer is accused of “re-violation” (whatever that may mean) and they are given a copy of a notice that looks something akin to this:
If you ask the City to search its own records, it will produce “proof” of the illegal connection in the form of a “job card” created by one of its officials, which looks something like this:
The biggest flaw in the system is that the City can only allege – but not prove – that its contractors actually cut off the supply to the property at a prior point in time, before the City accused the customer of illegally reconnecting themselves.
The charges imposed on the customer’s invoice, then look something akin to this:
COULD THIS BE A METER READING BRIBE SCAM?
It is theorised that this new scam might have been cooked up by meter readers looking for a bribe to prevent disconnection of supply. They visit the property to disconnect the supply and if the customer won’t bribe them – they actually don’t cut off the supply, and instead return a few days later to document that the water or power is still running. Then, on the basis of this documentation, the customer is accused of illegally reconnecting themselves. The amount that meter readers ask for a bribe vary greatly, but we have heard of cases ranging from R 200 to R 200,000 – whereas the amount charged to a person who has bypassed illegally is around R 26,000.
CONCLUSION
The practice of unlawfully adding meter tampering charges to customers’ municipal statements raises significant legal and ethical concerns regarding the City’s approach to these matters. You might feel that it is unfair to see these charges on your monthly bill if you believe there was no tampering involved.
What if you didn’t tamper with any meter and suddenly find these charges on your account? This underscores the importance of requiring a competent court to convict alleged offenders before the City imposes any fines. While meter tampering is a serious offense, any penalties or fines imposed by the City must adhere to due process, including a conviction by a competent court.
The City’s practice of disguising fines as miscellaneous charges on municipal accounts not only undermines the rights of Johannesburg residents and property owners, but also risks being perceived as potentially extortionary. It is therefore suggested to take legal advice before paying any “fine” levied by a municipality, as it may not have been lawfully imposed, and therefore not due and payable.
¹City Power spokesperson 2017, Mr Virgil James, Times Live, “Amnesty under way for electricity meter tampering in Johannesburg”, TMG Digital, 15 May 2017, Amnesty under way for electricity meter tampering in Johannesburg (timeslive.co.za)
³Microsoft Word – FinalWater Services By-laws 190603.doc (joburg.org.za)
4ITEM 40 ANNEXURE C.pdf (joburg.org.za)
5Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 | South African Government (www.gov.za)
