Anger Over E-Toll Billing Errors People Are Being Billed Who Do Not Own
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Anger over e-toll billing errors People are being billed who do not own cars, credit-card details get lost and e-tags do not work. Angelique Serrao 23 December 2013 Many motorists are complaining about problems with the e-toll system - from bills delivered to people who don’t own cars to credit card details being lost and e-tags that won’t work. Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance chairman Wayne Duvenage said its website had been inundated with people writing in about strange happenings with their e-toll accounts. People are also turning to social media platforms to vent their anger as well as customer service rating centres such as Hello Peter. Heimrich Swart lives in Mokopane, Limpopo, and has not been in Gauteng since the beginning of the year. His wife does not have a car registered in her name. But last week she received SMSes from the e-toll violations processing centre informing her she was behind on her account. Swart said he called the customer call centre to enquire about the messages but none of the four people he spoke to could help him. “After being on the phone for 21 minutes without getting any help, I put the phone down.” Alastair Dooley registered for an e-tag the day before e-tolling started on 2 December. He travels through seven gantries to get to work. He registered online and the South African National Roads Agency Limited confirmed his credit card details were correct by processing a R1 transaction on his account. But a few days later, Dooley got an e-mail from Sanral saying his credit card had been declined, and then the call centre told him his credit card had expired. HOT-LISTED “But I was on my account and I could see the expiry date on the system was correct and the credit card hadn’t expired,” Dooley said. He was then told that his credit card had been hot-listed and that he must go into a customer call centre and swipe the card. “As soon as they said I had to swipe the card, I knew there was a problem with their system. I told them I believed they were lying to me and that they had a problem with their system, but they denied this,” Dooley said. Dooley knew a woman who worked for a bank on the e-toll project and asked her if she knew anything. “She told me there was a glitch in their system and that the credit card details of all those who had registered between 1 and 4 December could not be retrieved,” said Dooley. There were 84 complaints against Sanral on the Hello Peter website in the past week. One customer wrote that they had sold their vehicle in July 2013 but Sanral had put this vehicle on their account. The customer centre couldn’t help, and the customer wrote that, “to make matters worse, they confirmed the vehicle was deleted from my account but (money) still gets deducted”. Another motorist wrote about going to a customer service centre for help. After an hour there, officials deleted two extra accounts that had mysteriously been added to the motorist’s original account. A few days later, the same motorist got a letter saying there were discrepancies with the account, so no discount would apply, and telling them to go to a service centre to link the tag again. Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona said he could not deal with individual customer complaints and urged motorists to call their call centre to get help. - The Star www.iol.co.za Do more than 94% of South Africans have access to clean and safe water? Water and Environment minister Edna Molewa has said they do. The claim is false. Researched by Julian Rademeyer Edited by Peter Cunliffe-Jones 5 December 2013 Do more than 94% of South Africans really have access to safe drinking water? The question arose after a recent Africa Check report in which we quoted a statement by Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa claiming that 94.7% of the population had “access to clean and safe drinking water”. A reader wrote to us querying the accuracy of the figure and argued that by referring to official statistics like this, “journalists minimize the extent of the [water] problem” in rural and poor municipalities. Government says over 94% have access to safe water So is the claim true or not? Certainly Edna Molewa is not the only one to have made such a statement about water provision in South Africa. In June 2011, her predecessor, Bulelwa Sonjica, told the National Council of Province s that “when the government took office in 1994, a mere 62% of households had access to clean drinking water. Today that figure stands at an average of 93%”. A report published by the South African government’s BuaNews agency in August 2011 referred to 92.9% of South Africans having “access to a safe water supply”. And on Saturday, during Freedom Day celebrations, President Jacob Zuma remarked that the “percentage of households with access to potable water has increased from 60 per cent to over 90 per cent” since 1994. Household survey shows much lower access figures Mava Scott, head of communications for the department of water affairs, told Africa Check that the department’s figures show that 96.4% of households currently have “access to piped water”. The issue of water quality is a “separate issue”, he said. However, according to the 2011 National Census, 91.2% of households had access to piped water, either inside their own homes or yards or from communal taps, and 8.8% (or about 4.5-million people) had absolutely no access to piped water. More detailed figures are contained in a 2011 general household survey published by Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), the government statistical service. And that report stated that 89.5% of South African households had access to piped water. Breaking that number down, 43.3% had piped water in their homes, 28.6% had access to water in their yards, 2.7% had the use of a neighbour’s tap and 14.9% had to make use of communal taps. This suggests the number of those with access to “piped water” is lower than that claimed. Access to a tap does not mean access to water And there is another issue besides the number with access to “piped water”. According to Scott, the department of water works on the assumption that if people have access to a tap, they have access to water. “When we talk about piped water, we are normally referring to infrastructure and people have access to water coming out of that infrastructure,” he told Africa Check. However, according to Oliver Ive, a water and sanitation engineer and MD of Amanz’ abantu Services, a private company involved in rural water supply and sanitation projects, “the fact that someone has a tap doesn’t mean they have clean water or access to piped water”. “If you put a pump or a service in a village, is it still working in five years time? Government will say that they have spent the money on infrastructure and the people have access, but if you go out and physically check if those taps are delivering water, and quality water, the answer is probably no. And what about water quality? “The reality,” says Oliver Ive, “is that everyone in South Africa has access to water because they are alive. Without water you die. The real question is, do they have access to water that is going to be good for health?” It is a far more difficult question to answer. One of the primary benchmarks of water quality in South Africa is the annual Blue Drop Report released by the department of water affairs. It focuses not only on water quality but also on operational aspects of water service providers including their risk and asset management and water safety plans. As a pure barometer of water quality, the report is problematic. The department is careful to emphasise that “a town without Blue Drop certification does not automatically mean that its water is unsafe for human consumption”. Releasing the most recent Blue Drop report in 2012, Molewa said: “The certificate is awarded as an acknowledgement of Excellent Drinking Water Quality management which surpasses the requirements of national norms and standards by a significant margin. In fact there are a number of water systems in many towns where the water complies well with set standards but there are certain shortcomings identified with the overall risk management aspect.” Assessments limited to 153 municipalities There is another problem. Blue Drop assessments in 2012 were limited to 153 municipalities designated as water services authorities. Hundreds of smaller rural water supply schemes, where many people still obtain water pumped from boreholes and springs, slip through the cracks. So while the programme has deservedly attracted wide praise as the most effective regulatory mechanism implemented by the department of water affairs to date, it does present a skewed portrait of water quality in South Africa. According to the 2012 report, as Molewa noted in her speech, “The overall national drinking water compliance figure is recorded at 98.3% (based upon microbiological, chemical, physical and organoleptic data).” The Eastern Cape, for instance, obtained an 82.10% Blue Drop compliance score although the province has been dogged for years by reports of unsafe water systems, poor management and poor access to piped water in rural areas. The reason is simple. “They are getting an artificially high reading because some of the less compliant municipalities and metropolitan areas are not reporting their figures,” says Dr Anthony Turton, a prominent water resource management specialist and professor at t he University of the Free State’s Centre for Environmental Management.