|
C/2007/9937
Ms V’s electricity was disconnected for non-payment of arrears.She used her mobile phone to ring the retailer, but was on hold for 20 minutes. Ms V said that when she got through just before 6pm, she was told she couldn’t make a payment after 6pm — even though full payment of the arrears was required for reconnection that evening.
Investigation showed that a team leader offered Ms V a number of options to pay the account, so reconnection could take place, but M s V chose to hang up and call back.
When M s V rang back after 6.30pm, to try to arrange a payment plan, she found the office was closed. Her electricity was reconnected the next day after payment was made, but she lodged a complaint about what had happened. She was also complaining that the retailer quoted her a reconnection fee higher than the fee stated on the disconnection warning.
In responding to EWOV’s investigation, the retailer initially said it believed a WDP may be applicable, as it may not have used its best endeavours to contact the customer in the month prior to the disconnection, per clause 13.2 of the Energy Retail Code.
In assessing whether a WDP was applicable, we took the following into account:
- All necessary notices were sent to M s V in line with the Energy Retail Code.
- The retailer wasn’t under an obligation to use its best endeavours to contact Ms V before the disconnection, because the information available to it didn’t indicate she was experiencing financial difficulty.
- Ms V paid her accounts in full up until M arch 2007.
- Ms V didn’t pay the next two bills, as they were estimated, but she told the retailer she would pay once an actual meter reading was taken.
- Some three months earlier, when M s V had entered into a payment arrangement for the outstanding balance, the retailer had advised her over the phone that disconnection may occur if payment wasn’t made as agreed.
- Over the next two months, the retailer sent M s V three disconnection warning notices for unpaid accounts. Payment wasn’t made and Ms V didn’t contact the retailer.
Discussions with the retailer showed that the Code obligations it was concerned about meeting applied only to customers evidently experiencing financial difficulty. As this didn’t apply to Ms V, it was agreed that a WDP wasn’t applicable. Ms V was satisfied
with this. She wasn’t disputing the disconnection — she was complaining about the delay in arranging reconnection.
In resolution of Ms V’s complaint, the retailer apologised for poor customer service and confirmed M s V’s feedback would be raised as part of its customer service training. It recognised the time she’d spent trying to arrange reconnection and her mobile phone costs and credited her account with $100. It also recognised that it had provided her with conflicting information about the reconnection fee, so it credited this as well. Ms V was satisfied with this outcome.
Customers have a responsibility to pay for the electricity they use and need to be aware that disconnection is an option available to companies for non-payment of arrears. However, the retailer in this case also recognised that the customer’s complaint raised important customer service issues and made sure it responded to those, as part of a fair and reasonable resolution.
Return to Electricity case studies
|
|
|
|
|