|
F/2007/403
After Ms E, a pensioner, signed up for a dual fuel account in February 2007, she was distressed to receive a $3,000 estimated bill. Ms E said she was told to ignore the bill and another would be issued. When the replacement bill arrived, it was for around $500, when Ms E’s bills were usually around $350.
Ms E said she rang the retailer again and was told the tariff had been increased — despite her belief that the rates and tariffs were fixed for the length of the contract. She said she was also told she could transfer to another retailer without a cancellation fee, if she found a cheaper retailer.
When she presented the retailer with another retailer’s offer, which she believed was cheaper, Ms E said she was told she wouldn’t be able to obtain the quoted rates without an off-peak meter. She then attempted to get a quote from a third retailer.
When she contacted EWOV, M s E was seeking to have her dual fuel account retrospectively transferred to the third retailer without any cancellation fee. She also wanted confirmation that the $500 bill had been calculated correctly.
Contacted by EWOV, the retailer advised that the $3,000 bill had been reversed and re-issued for $500, based on an actual meter read — and it now included an additional $160 as a result of a miscalculation on the gas account.
In resolution of Ms E’s complaint, the retailer
waived the additional charge of $160, because it hadn’t told Ms E about
it when she made contact. The retailer also agreed to transfer Ms E’s
dual fuel account to the third retailer without a cancellation fee. The
outstanding amount was $316.03, which Ms E undertook to pay.
In a competitive market, it’s important that customers are given
correct information. Had this customer been provided with correct
information in the first place, she may have decided to stay with the
new retailer.
Return to Dual fuel case studies
|
|
|
|
|