I have eventually managed to sell a stand that I have 'owned' for the past 8 years, situated in Utrecht.
For those of you who don't know, Utrecht is in the north of KZN down the road from Newcastle.
The municipality of Utrecht, now renamed eMadlangeni falls within the district of Majuba.
Further useless information -Very Apt, it would appear now that there are just different vultures. http://devplan.kzntl.gov.za/idp_revi...%202009-10.pdfThe word “Emadlangeni” comes from a historical background of the area which was swamped by vultures that were eating carcases of livestock that died in numbers in the area because of draught.(sic)
Over the past 8 years I have fought this municipality of vultures regarding electricity charges and then it was refuse removal on vacant residential land. The only positive response I received during this period was that they would disconnect the electricity, to which there was great confusion when I requested them to show me the connection and I would switch it off myself.
This account has grown over the years to an amount greater than my original investment.
So when I received an offer that would create a breakeven situation and a future saving on this ridiculous account, I took it with thanks.
But lo, the Majuba District have produced a water account never seen before. I am not even sure they have seen it before, but it declares that failure to pay would create a failure to transfer situation.
Even if there is a basic charge for these services that distributed over all erfs in the area, one would assume a reasonable fee which was always included in the rates value in any case. These amounts are beyond reasonable. Certainly, we have had no benefit of electricity or water and I was charged more for refuse removal than I pay in Durban where they actually do the job.
The transferring attorneys just want to pay it, get their commission and move on. Obviously they dont give a toss about the situation.
I was wondering whether anybody else out there has come across this blackmail type situation created by accounts that obviously could not be applicable as no service/goods have been delivered. I am pretty sure this is not in line with the CPA, and seems wrong on many levels.