Policy change following persistence and investigation

 

Mr V was concerned that, despite his having advised the water company of a broken pipe, water was still gushing down the road over six hours later. He wanted EWOV to influence
the water company’s policy in relation to shutting off water to broken pipes.

 

Mr V said that, when he rang the water company, he was told it knew about the leak.
He also said he asked why the water hadn’t been shut off and was told, “I don’t know”.
He later spoke with a manager who said the water had been shut off. Six hours later, at
2am the next day, it was still flowing.

 

Contacted by us, the water retailer said that in previous contacts with Mr V on similar
issues, it had explained to him that how it dealt with leaks and breaks was consistent
with the standards set by the Essential Services Commission (ESC). It had also explained
the inconvenience it believed would result from the water being turned off whenever there was a leak. It said it had sent Mr V copies of the relevant ESC document and of its Guaranteed Service Levels. We suggested Mr V take up the matter with the ESC.

 

His case did, however, have a positive outcome. The water company advised of its
decision to change its policy such that in future, where there was a break, it would
turn the water off. It also said it had brought in extra crews to more quickly repair the increasing number of leaks it was experiencing.

 

Mr V was pleased with these changes. He also advised that he intended to contact
the ESC about the existing standards. (W/2007/157, from Resolution 24)

Contentious decisions as a result of supply restrictions

 

Ms M’s complaint was about her local water company’s refusal of her request to take
9,000 litres of water daily from a metered hydrant near her livestock property.

 

Responding to our investigation, the water company’s view was that the matter was
out of EWOV’s jurisdiction—on the basis that Ms M wasn’t its customer, because she
didn’t receive a reticulated water supply. It also believed that Stage 4 water restrictions
and rapidly falling water reserves gave it no discretion to make the water available.

 

Before it would give us more information, the water company wanted a decision on scheme jurisdiction. We confirmed jurisdiction on the basis of EWOV’s Charter which allows us to receive complaints relating to the provision of supply and the failure to provide or supply electricity, gas or water services—including from persons directly affected, not necessarily
a customer. This was a case of failure to supply.

 

Jurisdiction settled, we were told that the water company’s customer service manager
had visited Ms M to better understand her concerns. Her application had also been
considered by the Water Exemption Committee and rejected—taking account of legislation
and regulations, including the provision that exemptions had to be acceptable to the general community. The fact that Ms M had been allowed to take water from the hydrant in 2000
was considered, but that had been under stage 2 restrictions. She also had the option of taking water from a standpipe 3 km from her property, a service provided to local farmers
by the local council.

 

Ms M had seen water carters filling up from the hydrant she wanted to use, and thought
it was unfair they could use it when she couldn’t. The water company said water carters weren’t allowed to take water either and would be told that. Ms M didn’t believe the
standpipe was a satisfactory alternative—it was further away than the meter and its
smaller outlet would make filling up take longer.

 

Our investigation was thorough and showed that the water company had given Ms M
correct advice. Dissatisfied with this information, Ms M withdrew the complaint.
(W/2006/1352 from Resolution 24)