|
C/2008/21414
An upgrade to a cable connection outside of Mr J's small business was
needed to meet Victorian Government compliance requirements. Mr J and the local distributor
agreed the work would be undertaken at 3pm on a Saturday to minimise business interruptions.
One the day, Mr J's manager closed the business at 3pm as scheduled and left - without
consulting the workmen onsite, or Mr J, about reconnection of the business' electricity supply.
The next day, Mr J realised the power hadn't been restored. When he rang the distributor, he was
told the crew hadn't been able to reconnect supply without access to the meter.
Mr J said the written notice he received didn't state how long the works would take - and the
crew didn't introduce themselves on the day or explain any requirements for access to the meter
or the premises.
He said he knew his electricity supply would be disconnected temporarily while the work was
completed - but understood it be for for one or two hours only. He said he wasn't told the
distributor would need access to reconnect supply at the meter.
Mr J lost around $6,000 in stock - the business had ten refrigeration units storing dairy and
other food products. He sought compensation from the company - on the basis that he wasn't
notified adequately of the meter access requirements for restoring his supply. He was referred to
a higher level representative, who apologised and suggested he submit a claim.
The acknowledgment letter from the company denied his claim - on the basis that there had been
no fault on the part of the distributor. Mr J sought an internal review of the decision by the
distributor - the same conclusion was reached.
It was suggested that Mr J should claim through his business insurance. He did this, but the
claim was denied - because the failure of the electricity supply was planned.
Contacted by EWOV, the distributor said mr J had been notified of the disconnection several
times and it had accommodated his business needs by shifting the works to a Saturday. However, it
couldn't produce any phone recordings or other proof of conversations or discussions about the
meter and property access requirements.
As part of our investigation, we contacted other electricity distributors to help us
understand industry practice in this type of situation - they considered the customer had
contributed to the situation so only a modest proportion of his claim should be paid.
In resolution of the complaint, the distributor apologised and offered Mr J a customer service
payment of $1,492. We believed this was fair and reasonable, given the opportunity to consult the
workmen on the day wasn't taken up.
While not achieving the full amount he claimed, Mr J was satisfied with his outcome.
This case highlights how situations with the potential to cause serious financial
detriment to customers can be avoided by confirming details in writing. For their part, customers
should take an active interest in works that affect their property.
Return to Electricity case studies
|
|
|
|
|