|
C/2008/140/75
Mr C's business received a bill of around $4,000 at the beginning of
2008. In 2007, his bills were between $600 and $800.
When he contacted his retailer, mr C was told the billing was accurate - that it just appeared
to be high compared with his 2007 bills, which had been undercharged due to meter reading errors.
A meter test by the retailer confirmed the meter was operating to Australian standards. Not
satisfied with this response, Mr C rang EWOV.
Contacted by us, the retailer advised Mr C had been undercharged by $10,621 in 2007. It
confirmed that the 2008 bills reflected the business' actual usage. It also said it hadn't
backbilled Mr C for the undercharge - and, to resolve the matter, would be prepared not to.
In investigating Mr C's complaint, we reviewed billing and metering data provided by the
retailer. According to his bills, Mr C's business was using around 150kWh a day.
We arranged for an electrician to check the business' equipment was operating correctly and to
assess the load capacity (wattage). A conservative usage audit confirmed the business could use
150 kWh of electricity, with only 60% of its equipment operating for three hours and 20 minutes a
day. Based on this assessment, we told Mr C his billing may be accurate.
When Mr C remained unconvinced about the usage, we asked him to complete a more detailed
energy audit form. We then reassessed his business' usage based on Mr C's own assessment of his
equipment and daily usage patterns. This confirmed usage of around 150 kWh a day.
While Mr C agreed that his overall usage of 150 kWh a day was correct, he asserted that his
retailer hadn't been billing his peak and off-peak usage correctly.
Further information from Mr C identified the appliances using off-peak power (between 11pm and
7pm) were using an average of 50-55 kWh a day. We cross-referenced this with the retailers
billing records and were able to confirm Mr C's assessment of his peak and off-peak usage matched
the off-peak amount on bills issued by his retailer. This information was provided to Mr C.
We advised Mr C of our assessment that his retailer's offer not to backbill him for 2007
charges was made in good faith - the retailer was entitled to backbill, because the business'
usage of over 40 MWh a year put it outside the limitations on backbilling in the Energy
Retail Code.
Mr C agreed that his 2008 billing appeared to be accurate - and, now understanding the load
capacity of his business, also agreed he should have detected something was wrong when his 2007
bills were so low. He was satisfied with his complaint being finalised on the basis that his
retailer wouldn't pursue him for the 2007 undercharges of $10,621.
Our detailed investigation provided this customer with independent evidence that his
recent billing was correct - and that he was fortunate not to have faced a large backbill. If the
retailer had clearly explained the billing discrepancies to him, a complaint to EWOV may have
been averted.
Return to Electricity case studies
|
|
|
|
|