CRPD/C/23/D/73/2019
1.2
On 12 November 2019, the Special Rapporteur on communications under the
Optional Protocol, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided to register the
communication without transmitting it to the State party for observations.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the party
Facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author has multiple permanent medical disabilities and chronic conditions, in
connection with which he has received modest monthly payments from a permanent
disability insurance claim. He is the sole inhabitant of a flat that he co-owns with his
brother under sectional title. Starting in 2008, he has filed annual applications with the City
of Cape Town for rebates on the municipal taxes payable over the ownership of the flat
under the rates rebate programme for disabled persons and senior citizens. The author states
that such rebates are supposed to be made available to persons with disabilities and senior
citizens with low to moderate incomes because municipal property taxes “far exceed any
reasonable cost” of municipal services and effectively amount to wealth redistribution.
2.2
The City of Cape Town denied the author’s applications covering the period 2008–
2013 on 22 March 2011 and 23 April 2013, and rejected his appeals on 30 April 2012 and
23 May 2013, including on the ground that his income was too high. According to the
author, the City had falsely and without any reason classified the insurance payments as
income. He states that the definition of “gross monthly household income” in the City’s
Rates Policy allows the City to define any receipt of capital as income and includes
categories beyond ordinary definitions of income, contrary to national government norms
and practices. He adds that the South African Revenue Service does not regard payments
from a disability insurance claim as income and that South African law distinguishes
between receipts of a capital nature and those of a revenue nature. The author’s actual
income would have rendered him eligible for the full, or almost the full, tax rebate rate. The
author adds that for the years 2014–2018, his applications have not yet been finalized,
owing to what he describes as the City of Cape Town’s unjustified demands and refusals to
properly answer correspondence and to explain its policies.
2.3
The author adds that the City of Cape Town has misapplied the Rates Policy also in
the sense that it considered the income of the other co-owner of the flat, even though the
Rates Policy prescribes the aggregation of all co-owners’ incomes only if the applicant is
not a natural person.
2.4
The author claims that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. He states
that his complaints and appeals to the City of Cape Town’s senior echelons – including the
Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Speaker, the Director of Revenue, the City Manager, the
Director of Legal Services, the City Ombudsman and the ward councillors – have either
been “brushed aside” or ignored. The author suspects that his applications were denied
because such was the Deputy Mayor’s wish, irrespective of the law. The author had a
personal meeting with city officials, during which he was asked to submit a “motivation”
for his objection to the qualification of disability insurance payments as income, even
though, according to the author, he should not have to substantiate a request for a correct
application of the law, and the motivation that he submitted was not properly considered.
He was subsequently requested to provide evidence of expenditures even though that was
irrelevant. He disputes the adequacy of the City of Cape Town’s response to the email he
sent in response to the decision of 30 April 2012. He had raised some of the decision’s
deficiencies, but the City responded only that the decision was regarded as “functus officio”
and that he had thus exhausted internal remedies. He submits that the City of Cape Town
has thus failed to provide just and accountable government.
2.5
Moreover, from December 2013 onwards, the author has brought claims of
violations of the Convention to the South African Human Rights Commission, the Office of
the Public Protector, the Western Cape provincial government, the office of the Presidency
and other government departments. The author comments that these authorities have been
lacking in response and that where they did reply, the replies were factually inaccurate,
misleading and lacking in remedial actions and substantiation of the City’s decision-making.
2