Consumer group battles water giants over poor service

Urip Hudiono, Jakarta

The Jakarta Water Consumers Community (Komparta) insisted that water firms PT Thames PAM Jaya (TPJ) and PT PAM Lyonnaise Jaya (Palyja) be held legally responsible for any public losses caused by their poor service.

In a summation of its class action suit against the firms on Wednesday, Komparta reiterated its demand that the Central Jakarta District Court find TPJ and Palyja guilty of violating Law No. 8/1999 on consumer protection, through their neglect of complaints from the public and losses caused by their incompetence in providing a reasonable service to customers.

As evidence for its charges, Komparta pointed out complaints from customers in Tomang, Klender, Menteng Atas Dalam and Rawa Badak on poor water quality and repeated shortages. It also complained at the firm's billing system, with recurring charges for paid bills and charges for water its members had not used.

"Due to the poor service, consumers had water for a limited period and had to buy bottled water for drinking," Komparta lawyer J.J. Armstrong Sembiring read in the summation.

Komparta also questioned the water firms' accountability, particularly on the right of the public to supervise the management of public funds and on water rate policies.

TPJ is a joint venture between city-run water firm PD PAM Jaya and British holding company Thames Water International, while Palyja links PD PAM Jaya with French firm Lyonnaise des Eaux.

"The firms' pipelines that use plastic composite pipes can be considered a waste of public funds because copper or stainless steel pipes are needed for drinking water," Armstrong said.

Komparta filed its suit last June, following the firms' decision to increase water rates despite numerous complaints that they had done nothing to improve the service.

Komparta has demanded compensation of Rp 990 million (US$105,319) for material losses and Rp 1 billion in nonmaterial damages. It also demanded the firms publish a public apology to consumers in several major media.

In their summation, TPJ and Palyja requested the court reject Komparta's arguments.

TPJ lawyer Yoseph B. Badeoda said much evidence provided by Komparta was irrelevant to the case.

"Komparta has also failed to provide any convincing argument and evidence to prove that the firms have indeed broken the law," he said.

The firms also questioned Komparta's survey on their performance as it had not been carried out by an independent agency, as well as testimonies from expert witnesses, as they were not consumers who had experienced poor service themselves.

The trial was adjourned to July 7 to hear the verdict.