|
W/2008/450
When Mr R purchased a landscaped property in 2007, the section 32 statement for the property noted that sewerage was connected. After receiving and paying his water company’s bills for this service, Mr R became aware that there was no sewerage connection to the property at all — the sewage was going down the stormwater drain.
Mr R immediately arranged for the necessary connection works to be completed, at a cost of some $10,000. Upset at having this unforeseen cost and losing his landscaped gardens, Mr R contacted the water company. He was seeking an explanation for the incorrect information on the section 32 statement. He also wanted to know why he’d been charged for a non-existent service. The water company refunded the sewerage charges, but told him the new connection would be at his cost. He was given no explanation for the error.
Contacted by EWOV, the water company said the property had been subdivided in 1995 and two new houses built. While these houses were connected to the sewer, Mr R’s property wasn’t. Due to an administrative error, though, all three properties were added to the water company’s computer system and charged for the sewerage service.
Our investigation revealed the section 32 statement clearly showed the sewerage as connected. As well, the bills before and after Mr R took over the property included sewerage disposal and service charges. While the water company agreed its administrative error had contributed to the problem, it pointed out that the section 32 statement advised the purchaser to contact the water company for an Information Statement. It said this statement would have shown Mr R that the property wasn’t sewered.
In resolution of the complaint, the water
company agreed to cover the costs of Mr R’s sewerage connection — in
recognition of the administration error and acknowledging that Mr R
couldn’t have reasonably foreseen the problem. For his part, Mr R
didn’t seek compensation for inconvenience, or for the loss of his
landscaped gardens, as he agreed he should have read the fine print and
obtained the information statement.
This case highlights respective responsibilities in contributing to and
resolving a problem. While the company accepted responsibility for its
administrative error, the customer took responsibility for his
oversight in not reading the section 32 statement — an oversight which
meant he was faced with rebuilding his landscaped gardens at his own
cost.
Return to Water case studies
|
|
|
|
|