|
W/2008/1550
Because Mr V's holiday house was rarely occupied, water use was usually
minimal. In lat 2008, he received a water bill of more than $10,000 - for usage of 5.5
megalitres. Mr V said there had been no prior warning of any water problems at the property.
Urgent investigations revealed a water pipe had corroded - as the water was being discharged
into the sandy soil, there was no surface evidence of it. As the leak was below the property's
garden tap, Mr V was responsible for fixing it. Urgent repairs were undertaken.
The water company initially offered Mr V a $1,000 account credit and time to pay. Further
representations resulted in the company offering to bill the usage at the lowest tariff - this
reduced the bill by a further $3,470. The total credit was $4,470 - 44% of the original
account.
In contacting EWOV, Mr V advised that the water company had been pleasant and co-operative to
deal with - but he wanted an independent assessment of whether the credit offered was fair and
reasonable under the circumstances.
Responding to our investigation, the water company advised that the leak was exceptional - few
leaks had such a significant financial impact.
We considered the undetected leaks policies of other water companies - and concluded there was
no consistent treatment of this issue. In this case, the water company's own policy provided a
waiver of 50% of the additional usage, but imposed al imit of $500 on the credit.
The complaint was resolved when Mr V accepted the water company's offer to waive 50% of the
billed usage and give him extra time to pay. Mr V was satisfied with this outcome.
Customers are responsible for maintaining the water pipes on their property. From a
company perspective, application of internal policies should include review of exceptional
circumstances - and, where appropriate, a flexible approach.
Return to Water case studies
|
|
|
|
|