News • 09 FEBRUARY 2003

Corporations ignore decision of Consumers Tribunal

Enemalta Corporation and Water Services Corporation have ignored a Consumers’ Tribunal’s decision that a Lm25 fine for receiving a dud cheque was excessive.

Anybody making a mistake when writing a cheque to pay a water and electricity bill faces the so-called administrative charge and several people have already bitten the dust.

The intention of the charge is undoubtedly to discourage people, who do not have enough money in their accounts, from sending cheques they know will bounce, but people making genuine errors are also in for a nasty surprise.

MaltaToday has been contacted by several people who face the charge including Rita Deguara from Tarxien who had asked her friend to make out a cheque for her.

Both Deguara and her friend were flabbergasted when the charge was received. They realised a mistake had been made when the cheque was written out.

Another consumer, Joseph Fenech, was charged Lm25 by Water Services Corporation for a cheque that was not accepted by the bank, but he took his case to the Consumers Tribunal.

On 1 October 2002, Dr Martin Fenech, the arbitrator in the case, decided the charge of Lm25 was excessive and ordered Fenech to pay only Lm5. Nevertheless the bills continue to be sent out with the ‘excessive’ charge and Deguara received her bill with the charge two months after the decision of the tribunal.

Commercial banks normal charge Lm5 for cheques that are not accepted because of insufficient funds.

Antoine Galea, the Financial Controller of Water Services Corporation told MaltaToday the decision to impose a Lm25 fine was taken at Chairman’s level "between the Chairmen of WSC and Enemalta."

"This was decided after a careful study was carried out on the costs incurred by the two corporations whenever there is a bounced cheque."

WSC Chairman Michael Falzon told MaltaToday he was consulting Enemalta with a view to having the charges reviewed.

Enemalta Chairman Prof Robert Ghirlando told MaltaToday: "The matter of returned cheques is unfortunately treated too lightly by too many people.

"A bounced cheque is tantamount to fraud if one is aware there may be insufficient funds, since in drawing up such a cheque the drawer is deceiving the receiver. In fact it is a criminal offence."

Ghirlando also suggested that banks should withdraw current account facilities to persons who issue bounced cheques.

The Enemalta chairman explained "Bounced cheques give us all sorts of problems and additional administrative work to both the Corporations, not just to one, since both organisations will have entered the payment in their books. Besides reversing the payments in both organisations, we must inform the consumer.

"Very often we end up having to physically go and collect the money from the consumer."

While all this is true it does not explain why Enemalta is insisting on a Lm25 charge for what is often a genuine error and not a case of fraud. The decision of the Consumers’ Tribunal remains ignored.