ZS
Zizipho S
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2025
23 Jun 2025, 12:54
Unexplainable Overbilling
RMS is ripping people off. I was not in my unit for 3 weeks in May 2025, only returned on 24 May, yet I’ve been billed a ridiculous R698.70. How is that even possible for a unit that was unoccupied for over three weeks? When I queried this, I got the lazy excuse that the meter “was not billing for a week” and they had to back bill. That still doesn’t justify such an excessive amount. Am I seriously expected to believe I used nearly R700 in a unit I wasn’t even living in? This reeks of incompetence or deliberate overbilling.
Helpful (0)
Replies (1)0
Replies (1)
Remote Metering Solutions (RMS)'s replyOfficial
25 Jun 2025, 13:25 Dear Zizipho,
Thank you for your message. We understand your concern regarding the R698.70 charge on your smrt!Wallet and appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity.
Your water meter was offline for a portion of May, which meant we couldn’t receive live water consumption data during that time. As explained in the notice sent to you on 22 May 2025, once the device reconnected, it automatically transmitted the actual water usage that occurred during the offline period. This is known as back billing, and it ensures that all consumption recorded during the offline period is correctly accounted for.
We can confirm that the notice was opened on your side, and it specifically addressed the expected back billing for affected units. Your account was therefore billed based on actual recorded usage.
Please rest assured that no estimated readings were used. If you'd like, we're happy to provide a detailed breakdown of your consumption during that time.
Thank you for your message. We understand your concern regarding the R698.70 charge on your smrt!Wallet and appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity.
Your water meter was offline for a portion of May, which meant we couldn’t receive live water consumption data during that time. As explained in the notice sent to you on 22 May 2025, once the device reconnected, it automatically transmitted the actual water usage that occurred during the offline period. This is known as back billing, and it ensures that all consumption recorded during the offline period is correctly accounted for.
We can confirm that the notice was opened on your side, and it specifically addressed the expected back billing for affected units. Your account was therefore billed based on actual recorded usage.
Please rest assured that no estimated readings were used. If you'd like, we're happy to provide a detailed breakdown of your consumption during that time.
Best regards,
Remote Metering Solutions (RMS)'s reply25 Jun 2025, 13:25
Official
Dear Zizipho,
Thank you for your message. We understand your concern regarding the R698.70 charge on your smrt!Wallet and appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity.
Your water meter was offline for a portion of May, which meant we couldn’t receive live water consumption data during that time. As explained in the notice sent to you on 22 May 2025, once the device reconnected, it automatically transmitted the actual water usage that occurred during the offline period. This is known as back billing, and it ensures that all consumption recorded during the offline period is correctly accounted for.
We can confirm that the notice was opened on your side, and it specifically addressed the expected back billing for affected units. Your account was therefore billed based on actual recorded usage.
Please rest assured that no estimated readings were used. If you'd like, we're happy to provide a detailed breakdown of your consumption during that time.
Thank you for your message. We understand your concern regarding the R698.70 charge on your smrt!Wallet and appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity.
Your water meter was offline for a portion of May, which meant we couldn’t receive live water consumption data during that time. As explained in the notice sent to you on 22 May 2025, once the device reconnected, it automatically transmitted the actual water usage that occurred during the offline period. This is known as back billing, and it ensures that all consumption recorded during the offline period is correctly accounted for.
We can confirm that the notice was opened on your side, and it specifically addressed the expected back billing for affected units. Your account was therefore billed based on actual recorded usage.
Please rest assured that no estimated readings were used. If you'd like, we're happy to provide a detailed breakdown of your consumption during that time.
Best regards,