Sir
Mr Hasmuk Patels (Fiji Times 7/11) long winded reply to Deo Narian in justification of levying two months security deposits on the increases in charges levied by the FEA onexisting FEA users who do not have a history of default is in itself scandalous. I can understand that under the act new users may have to pay a security deposit of two months usage based on the current charges , but where in the Electricity Act does it state that the FEA should INCREASE security deposits on existing customers.

Also Hasmuk Patel is using smoke and mirrors regarding the use of deposits currently held, of course the FEA is refunding and receiving new deposits on a constant basis, but is not possible for this to equate to more than 20% of the total deposits at any one time. This means that FEA has 80% of the deposits held to use as cash flow for other areas of their operations. It would therefore be fair and just for the government ( who promised to be fair and just) to review the Electricity Act so that the FEA users had an annual interest of 5% credited to the monies held by the FEA as a security deposit, this in itself would negate the need for the FEA to make demands on existing customers for additional deposits. .

Perhaps the erstwhile Commerce Commission can find time to take a closer look at this matter.

Rick Rickman
Vuda

Advertisements