I read with interest a column in the Jamaica Observer on June 8, 2021 entitled ‘Why do Jamaicans routinely accept incompetence?’ You bemoaned the fact that, “Jamaicans have become accustomed to accept being overcharged for goods, receiving poor or unreliable services, and tolerating inadequate infrastructure.” I am perhaps guilty of them all. My focus is, however, on being overcharged.

I am an 81-year-old resident of the small rural community of Shrewsbury in St Elizabeth. In September 2019 I received a bill from the National Water Commission (NWC) for the sum of $33,671.08. Prior to that, the highest bill during the year was for $5,937.50 in January, but an adjustment of $2,379.05 was made in March, suggesting a possible overcharge on the January bill. I protested vigorously and rubbished the idea of a bill of that magnitude in a community that has an irregular gravity-fed water supply from an ageing, ill-maintained, decrepit reservoir at Hannah Spring. This gravity-fed source is mainly functional when it rains heavily.

Although the gross limitations of this source must have been well known within NWC circles, they insisted that this was the reading on the meter. And, of course, I must pay. I continued to protest and finally they decided to remove the meter for testing. It was a ridiculous proposition several months after the disputed reading and when the readings were not now in dispute.

A letter from the customer care manager (CCM), dated October 12, 2020, states: “We write in reference to your complaint of high billing for the month of September 2019. Our field officer visited your property on July 1, 2020 and your meter was checked. Upon observation, your meter was not registering, which indicated that there was no leak on your premises. Also, the supply was not connected to the house on the property due to the elevation, but instead a pump was connected to the line to facilitate water going to a storage tank to serve property.

“Based on the findings above, the decision was made to conduct further investigation by removing the meter from the property and sending it to our laboratory for testing to confirm the functionality of the meter. The test from the lab based on the ISO 4064 Standard for ½ – 2 Inch Meters was conducted on July 31, 2020. The results indicated the meter was deemed to be working accurately and therefore passed the test.”

The first part of the letter from the CCM is indeed correct and the question would therefore be: Why then was the consumption of water deemed to be over 10 times the normal for a small household. However, the removal of the meter for testing nearly one year after the disputed bill is a most disingenuous sleight of hand.

The CCM had sought to convince me that the time lapse would in no way prevent their engineers from determining whether the meter was functioning accurately in September 2019. But, alas, the technician who conducted the study called and invited me to attend. I declined. He then informed me that he had no way of determining how the meter was functioning nearly a year ago. That was no surprise to me. Yet the NWC used that July 2020 reading to conclude that the meter was functioning correctly in September 2019 and hence I was required to pay.

My protests continued.

Then, without explanation or apology, the account was credited $30,268.51 in April 2021. But, as if engaged in a dangerous game, the bill during the same month was for $16,177.98.

The game continued in December 2021 when I received a bill for $45,275.69, which was nearly 25 times the previous month’s bill of $1,848.09. I telephoned the regional office immediately upon receipt and followed up with a text message on December 2021 and an e-mail on January 14, 2022, but have received no response from them. The January 2022 bill was $15,323. Still no communication from them.

Contrast this with my experience with the Jamaica Public Service (JPS). My JPS bill jumped from $6,400 to $13,400 in two months. The company sent me an alert stating that they had checked to verify that the meter was functioning properly. This alert to a doubling of my electricity cost came before the bill for that month. Yes, I used a number of electrical appliances during the month.

I do not operate a farm, factory, or hotel, and there are no leaks. I requested that I be informed whenever the meter was being read, but this was denied. The reason given was resource constraints. But it cannot be business as usual when a customer is billed $46,000.

The pattern of these high bills, divorced from any reality, would suggest something more than mere incompetence on their part. Consequently, I requested a suspension of the ‘service’ until the matter is resolved. In the interim I shall continue to harvest rainwater and, if necessary, supplement this with purchased water.

I am making a public disclosure at this time to warn NWC consumers to beware. I am also in the process of preparing a detailed report to be sent to the relevant ministry and copying a number of interested parties.

This matter requires a full investigation from which the NWC is disqualified based on the nonchalance of their employees — from the customer service representatives to the regional manager.

maresour@gmail.com