WCID Operations Manager Refusal to Comply with the CoCT CID Policy and CoCT CID Bylaw, and Make the WCID Website Compliant
Post 3 – 31 January 2026
To recap, in POST 2 of yesterday, the WCID Board Chairperson stated the following to the Information Regulator:
“The WCID provided answers after every interaction between Anika Nell and the complainant (Cheryl Quantrill) as well as between WCID Manager and the complainant. Information was never refused, and Cherl Quantrill was invited to a in person meeting which she refused - Arndt please add the invite and Cheryl’s refusal.”
POST 2 has shown that the first part of the Board Chairperson’s statement, namely:
“The WCID provided answers after every interaction between Anika Nell and the complainant (Cheryl Quantrill) as well as between WCID Manager and the complainant. Information was never refused”
to be totally false.POST 3 will discuss the second part of the Board Chairperson’s statement, where she stated:
“Cherl Quantrill was invited to a in person meeting which she refused - Arndt please add the invite and Cheryl’s refusal.”
This statement is actually true, but has been quoted totally out of context by the Board Chairperson, and had nothing to do with their refusal to provide the requested documentation, and information, as will be seen below.Cheryl had been trying to bring the Operations Manager’s attention to the non-compliance of the WCID website with respect to not having complaints register posted. This had absolutely nothing to do with their refusal to provide information. See Addendum SC 2a.
This is the same strategy used by the Board Chairperson, when she wrote, that, as public participation was not a legal requirement, she didn’t need to respond to Cheryl’s request for the number of complaints received about the Welcome Garden. This, despite the fact that, at the meeting, the Board Chairperson undertook to provide the number of complaints to Cheryl. This was even followed up by Hessel Turkstra, the director holding the portfolio of Good Governance. The Board Chairperson simply decided to renege on her undertaking and ignore Cheryl. After Cheryl persisted, the Board Chairperson finally responded stating that 16 complaints were received.
The meeting to which the Board Chairperson is referring is therefore totally unrelated to their refusal to provide information. It relates to Cheryl trying to get the WCID website compliant, and the Operations Manager refusing to do so, as can be seen in Addendum 2a.
Addendum 2a includes the various discussions, but your attention is drawn to the correspondence of Thu, 18 Sept 2025, 13:19. The comments from the Operation Manager are highlighted in yellow. Cheryl’s responses are in magenta text.
“The time spent on this issue, which does not add value, is questionable”
That is the verbatim reply from the Operations Manager. In his opinion, time spent on getting the WCID compliant “does not add value” and is “questionable”. As you can see, all correspondence was copied to the Board, not one of whom made a comment.This was followed by:
“As stated previously, we could not find any other CID that displays a complaints register on its website.”
So, in his opinion, if other CIDs are non-compliant, we don’t need to be compliant either.Next up was:
“Your interpretation of the CID Bylaw and the requirement of the CID to reflect such information is very focused, yet the intention of your enquiry remains unclear.”
He is not clear as to what Cheryl’s “intention” is with respect to getting the WCID compliant!We then have:
He will “endeavor to reflect a complaints register list, when capacity allows”
and
“I do not have time for non-value adding tasks”.
In the opinion of the Operations Manager, and the Board, who were copied in on the email, ensuring that the WCID is compliant is a waste of time, does not add value, is questionable, and anyway, he does have time for “non-value adding tasks”.He also stated:
“I also discussed the requirement of a public complaints register on our website with the head of the City of Cape Town CID department. He confirmed that there is no instruction for CIDs to reflect a complaints register to the public or on their website.”
It would appear that the head of the City of Cape Town CID department provided guidance inconsistent with the applicable policy framework, namely the CoCT CID Policy.
And finally, from the Operations Manager:
“Therefore, your request to have all complaints, along with the relevant responses from the WCID team, shared publicly will not be fulfilled.”
After all of the above, the Operations Manager didn’t even bother to read the CoCT CID Policy, and declined to make the WCID website compliant. The reason he probably didn’t read the CoCT CID Policy is because he couldn’t find it on the WCID website, as, despite numerous requests by Cheryl for months now, to have the search function on the WCID website fixed, as of today, 31 January 2026, it not fully functional. And we are paying a web developer a monthly retainer to manage the website.
The 2022 CoCT CID Policy is quite clear: (See Addendum 18)
24.1 The NPC shall establish and maintain a website for purposes of publishing information pertaining to its activities and relevant regulatory information, and to invite comments or complaints from its members and members of the local community.
24.2 The NPC shall publish the following information on its website:
24.2.16 the company’s complaints resolution process; and
24.2.17 the outcome of any complaint submitted in terms of the NPC’s complaints resolution process, provided that personal information of the complainant, CID employee or agent, or member of the public is redacted;The WCID’s complaints resolution process did not exist at the time, nor did they publish any information relating to complaints lodged. The WCID were therefore non-compliant for the entire 5 year, Term 1 period, which Cheryl was trying to get them to rectify.
The Operations Manager, and the Board demonstrated a sustained failure to comply with statutory obligations, despite repeated notifications, believing that they could simply ignore the legislation, cherry-pick aspects of the legislation which they felt like complying with, in this case, to hide the complaints against them. Additionally, they obfuscate, deflect and deceive.
Cheryl had raised website non-compliance issues at a Board meeting, dealt with Francois Laurence on the matter, as well as Operations Manager. Francois claimed that they had made the website compliant, but had not.
In addition, the WCID Board, as well as Hessel Turkstra (CA(SA)), a chartered accountant, the portfolio holder for Good Governance, failed to fulfil their obligations, with respect to ensuring good governance and oversight.
The WCID Board Chairperson is therefore correct. The Operations Manager wanted to have a meeting, and stated the following:
“I believe it will be most effective if Renaldo and I meet with you in person to address all your concerns openly, examining the facts at hand to clarify any uncertainties or identify issues we may have to agree to disagree on. Criticism and conflict will only ever add value if both parties seek a factual, objective solution and step back from subjective perspectives.”
Cheryl declined the meeting, stating:
“There is nothing complicated or vague about the requirements of the CoCT CID Bylaws or Policy. Both you, as Operations Manager, and the WCID Board, have failed in ensuring that the WCID is compliant, by not complying with the Policy requirements.