Lusaka Hotels denies owing water utility firm K1m

By GRACE CHAILE-LESOETSALUSAKA Hotels Limited has dismissed claims that it owes Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company Limited (LWSC) over K1 million for sewerage services.LWSSC has sued the hotel in the Lusaka High Court for failure to settle sewerage services bill amounting to K1, 004,662.70.But in its defence , Lusaka Hotel Limited denied the sum …

Lusaka Hotels denies owing water utility firm K1m
By GRACE CHAILE-LESOETSALUSAKA Hotels Limited has dismissed claims that it owes Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company Limited (LWSC) over K1 million for sewerage services.LWSSC has sued the hotel in the Lusaka High Court for failure to settle sewerage services bill amounting to K1, 004,662.70.But in its defence , Lusaka Hotel Limited denied the sum of K1,004,662,70 but agreed that there were outstanding queries which it has raised with LWSC concerning inaccurate meter reading, erratic and inconsistent billing, wrong tariffs and failure by the plaintiff to trace pay-ments made to it but which have been debited to its account.The hotel stated that the amount claimed has to be verified through a diligent reconciliation of the issues it raised with the plaintiff which date back over a period of five years.It argued that the subsequent changing of the meter as alleged was a recent event and in itself does not resolve previous queries relating to earlier inaccurate meter readings and the other issues.Lusaka Hotel stated that prior to February 12, 2020, it had at its own cost procured services and paid for a leak detection test but LWSC or its agents failed to come and witness the said test.The hotel claims that the bill alluded to was a latter arrangement by LWSC carrying a cost of over K23, 000 which defendant could not af-ford.It however acknowledged that the sewer services have been discontinued to the great inconvenience of its clients.The hotel stated that the tariff used was inconsistent with hospitality industry/industrial use and that reconciliation of payments made to plaintiff which it has failed to trace, but which have been denied to defendant’s banking account and showing as credited to LWSC.