Systemic Issues Investigations Closed by EWOV
1 July to 30 September 2012

Energy

Billing delays and subsequent backbilling

In October 2011, we identified eight complaints where, after a significant billing delay, the customer was back billed more than nine months—without advice of payment assistance for the accumulated arrears. In mid-2012, similar occurrences were still being identified. The energy retailer initially provided a response to us acknowledging the issue. When it didn’t continue to participate in our systemic issue investigation, the investigation was referred to the ESC, in line with the EWOV Charter. We consider this an unsatisfactory outcome, because EWOV scheme participants are expected to co-operate with our systemic issues investigations. SI/2011/80  

Manual application of Standard Feed-in Tariff (SFiT)

In June 2012, a customer complained to us that his account had been debited for the Standard Feed-in Tariff (SFiT), instead of credited. Our investigation showed that his energy retailer was still applying SFiT credits manually. The retailer confirmed the issue related to a particular distribution area and to a prior systemic issue investigation (SI/2009/66). It confirmed that a fix was put in place in early 2012 to ensure that any SFiT credits were automatically applied to customers within the distribution area, and any credits were retrospectively applied to eligible customers. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. We advised the regulator. SI/2012/51

Inaccurate consumption graphs on bills

When lodging his complaint with us in June 2012, a customer said that a contact centre representative at his energy retailer alerted him to the systemic issue of inaccurate consumption graphs on some bills. The retailer confirmed the issue, but advised it was limited to customers who had the meter at their property exchanged during the billing period—the graph included data from both meters. The retailer confirmed a system fix would be implemented in mid-August 2012. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve the issue, although it should have notified EWOV directly. We advised the regulator. SI/2012/52

Compensation for missed Premium Feed-in Tariff

Around May 2012, we received 35 complaints from customers who missed out on the Premium Feed-in Tariff (PFiT) due to complications with an energy retailer’s processing of the required paperwork. While the retailer was making a fixed offer to resolve these types of complaints, the offer did not benefit all of the customers who missed out on the PFiT through no fault of their own. The retailer met with us to review cases where the fixed offer was unsuitable. The outcome was that, in these instances, the retailer gave the customer a goodwill payment of $100 to $200, as well as an upfront credit of the difference between the PFiT and the Transitional Feed-in Tariff (TFIT) for 12 months. The retailer said it would continue to apply ongoing credits, at the end of each 12 months, for the difference between TFiT and PFiT for the life of the PFiT scheme. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. We advised the regulator. SI/2012/45

Billing on incorrect tariff after billing system upgrade

In May 2012, an energy retailer alerted us that, because of difficulties transferring customer details to its new billing system, some 350 customers were billed on the incorrect tariff structure. It said the issue arose when some accounts were manually transferred between billing systems and the operating procedures didn’t provide clarity on establishing the correct tariff. The retailer confirmed it had rewritten the operating procedures, contacted and corrected the accounts of affected customers, and retrospectively applied any applicable credits. The regulator was advised. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. SI/2012/38

Incorrect solar tariff / loss of solar credits

Through two complaints lodged with us in June 2012, we identified that some customers of an energy retailer had either been put on the incorrect solar tariff or had lost solar credits altogether. The retailer advised that the issue arose when some customer accounts were manually transferred between billing systems and the operating procedures didn’t provide clarity on establishing the correct tariff. The energy retailer confirmed that it had rewritten the operating procedures, contacted and corrected the accounts for affected customers and retrospectively applied any applicable solar credits. The regulator was advised. We considered that the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. SI/2012/55

Overcharging from incorrect service process for solar installation

In July 2012, the Essential Services Commission alerted us to an issue involving an energy retailer and an energy distributor—some 269 customers were overcharged for solar installation services. The retailer advised that its service order process with the energy distributor was the cause of the problem. A temporary fix was implemented while the energy retailer sought a permanent solution. All affected customers were contacted and credited. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue, although it appears to be taking considerable time to develop a permanent solution. SI/2012/68

Frequent and unplanned electricity supply outages

Five complaints in August 2012 alerted us to instances of frequent and unplanned electricity supply outages within a specific distribution area. The energy distributor said a series of things caused supply problems for some 69 customers. It said it was undertaking further testing and inspections to identify the key fault. It arranged a letter drop to customers in the affected area, published a media release and confirmed it would monitor the outages and apply Guaranteed Service Level payments if applicable.  We considered that the energy distributor was taking appropriate steps to resolve this complex issue. We did not advise the regulator. SI/2012/71

Confusing supply connection process as a result of system limitations

One customer’s complaint to us in August 2012 highlighted their preferred energy retailer’s confusing process for supply connection. The customer was told they would have to arrange their connection through the property’s existing energy retailer, wait to receive the first bill, and then contact the preferred retailer to arrange the transfer. The retailer confirmed that it follows this complex process because of system limitations. It said it was attempting to fix the issue, to make the connection and transfer process more customer-focused, but a specific timeframe couldn’t be provided.  Although this issue wasn’t a licence breach, we believe the significant inconvenience caused to customers warrants a solution as soon as possible. SI/2012/73

Delay in passing on Guaranteed Payment level (GSL) payments

Through 10 complaints lodged with us around March 2012, we identified that Guaranteed Service Level (GSL) payments made by a distributor to customers affected by ongoing unscheduled outages hadn’t been passed on to those customers by the energy retailer. The energy retailer blamed complications processing the GSL file from the distributor. It said all affected customers had since been paid. We advised the regulator. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve the issue. SI/2012/28

Unauthorised direct debits after backbilling

From two complaints received in August 2012, we identified instances of unauthorised direct debit. This appeared similar to an earlier systemic issue investigation (SI/2011/94) concerning the same energy retailer in 2011. The retailer confirmed an issue with direct debit transactions for a group of customers who’d been back billed. Some customers who elected for a partial direct debit payment had the full arrears debited. The retailer said it had arranged for a refund, an apology and a customer service payment. We advised the regulator. SI/2012/79

No issue dates on bills

From a complaint lodged with us in August 2012, we identified instances where an energy retailer’s bills didn’t contain issue dates. Although this isn’t a requirement of the Energy Retail Code, it would have provided clarity for the retailer’s customers and bring its billing into line with that of other energy retailers. The retailer advised that, from 31 October 2012, its bills would include an issue date. It provided an example of the billing template, which confirmed the issue date inclusion. We consider the energy retailer took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. We advised the regulator. SI/2012/81

Water

Overcharging related to desalination plant construction delay

June 2012 media coverage alerted us to overcharging of some 1.6 million customers of a water corporation, related to the desalination plant construction delay. We received 16 complaints. The water corporation advised that repayment of the overcharge (averaging $82 a household) would be implemented through a 2012-13 price freeze. It said it was consulting with the Essential Services Commission to determine how to repay any additional money which may be owed to customers at the end of the 2012-13 financial year. We consider the water corporation took appropriate steps to resolve this issue. We advised the Department of Sustainability and Environment. SI/2012/53