The Makhado Municipality's refusal to approve the building plans of a member of the Soutpansberg Ratepayers Association (SRPA) could be illegal.

“The Chief Financial Officer is … in no position to authorise service delivery … until the arrears amount on his account is paid in full or a satisfactory arrangement are (sic) made with the municipality to repay the arrears amount,” the municipality writes in a letter dated 28 February and signed by the former municipal manager, Mr Shadrack Tshikalange.

The SRPA member also withholds rates and taxes and pays for consumption according to the SRPA’s legal dispute declared with the Makhado Municipality in August 2008. The member, who applied for approval of building plans in 2011, is in arrears with rates and taxes to an amount in excess of R42 000, which amount is held in trust by Van Heerden and Rudolph Attorneys.

The municipality told the member to pay the outstanding amount “for the final processing of the approval of your plan”.

The logical question that follows is whether members of the SRPA will ever be able to get building plans authorised. In the case of a member's selling a house, it is a well-known fact that members have to request their arrears money and pay up before being able to sell.

“The transfer of property is something else. But to refuse to authorise service delivery in terms of approval of building plans? On face value, that seems to be illegal. You cannot do debt equalising like this. If they want their money, they must take the person to court and address the problem where it lies, but they cannot refuse to authorise service delivery. That amounts to the municipality's playing court,” said attorney Mr André Naudé.

The member in question brought the matter to the attention of the SRPA. The SRPA wrote a letter to the municipality, explaining that “the money in the trust account is held in trust until such time as the Makhado Municipality decides to resolve the dispute.” The SRPA put on record that the municipality is prohibited by the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000) to “implement any of the debt collection and credit control measures … in relation to any arrears on any of the accounts of a person who declared a dispute on the basis of the legislation mentioned above”.

The SRPA chairperson, Ms Inga Gilfillan, said that her association “deeply regrets this intimidation and victimisation of a law-abiding, taxpaying resident of Louis Trichardt,” referring to Mr F L Avian of 10 De Vaal Street.

The Makhado Municipality, in turn, referred the SRPA to “the provisions of Section102 (1) and (2) Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 102 of 2000”. It took a firm position against the existence of a dispute and wrote, “this section specifically requires a dispute to be about any specific amount claimed by the municipality from the person. The so-called dispute declared by your Rate Payers Association does not fall within the strict requirements of Section 102(2) of the Systems Act; and furthermore, no dispute was ever declared by Mr FL and KE Avian about any specific amount claimed by the municipality, therefore there is currently no dispute declared in terms of the Systems Act”.

“I would like to know in terms of which act and article the municipality has the right to refuse service delivery,” Naudé said. This question and questions on an update of the situation were directed to the municipal spokesperson, Mr Louis Bobodi, who said that he was still sourcing the information.

The SRPA manager, Ms Aretha Smith, said that they had received the advice to consider Sections 7 and 8 of the National Building Regulations Act. “You can bring an application to a magistrate to approve the plans if the municipality refuses,” engineer Mr Johan Koekemoer advised Smith.