Damage due to unauthorised voltage variation

Case number: 00028929
Date of decision: 4 June 2026
Decision accepted by the consumer: Yes

Ombudsman's decision

4 June 2026
Mr H has made a complaint to EWOV about an electricity distributor. This is my final decision on how the complaint should be resolved.

Mr H complains that the electricity distributor responsible for the power network to his house caused damage to his property via a power surge. The electricity distributor does not dispute that an unauthorised voltage variation event occurred and that it caused damage to property located at Mr H’s premises.

Mr H and the electricity distributor disagree about how much compensation, if any, should be paid.

In reaching my decision, I have considered the available evidence and arguments, relevant law and regulation, good industry practice and community expectations of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

There is no dispute that an unauthorised voltage variation event occurred

I am satisfied that an unauthorised voltage event occurred within the meaning of clause 20.4.8 of the Electricity Distribution Code of Practice (Code).

A car struck an electricity pole in the electricity distributor’s area. The electricity distributor’s assessment shows that as a result of this event, high voltage infrastructure needed to be repaired. These repairs included replacing several fuses and electricity meters, one of which was at Mr H’s premises.

There is no dispute between the parties that an unauthorised voltage variation event occurred. This is supported by information contained in the electricity distributor’s damage report. Mr H’s electrician also provided a report that Mr H’s property had been damaged by an “over voltage surge”.

Even though the unauthorised voltage variation event was the result of the actions of a third party, Mr H can still make a claim under the compensation scheme set out in Schedule 4 of the Code for unauthorised voltage variation events. This is because the compensation scheme does not look at what caused the unauthorised voltage variation.

The claims process under the Schedule 4 compensation scheme applies

When a consumer wants to make a claim under Schedule 4 of the Code, they must contact the electricity distributor and report the damaged property.

After receiving the claim, the electricity distributor can ask for more information about what happened and about the amount being claimed. The consumer must then support the claim with quotes, receipts or other evidence. If the electricity distributor asks for it, the consumer must also provide evidence of the damage.

Under clause 2.3 of Schedule 4, this evidence can include a statement from a qualified electrician confirming that the damage is consistent with an unauthorised voltage variation.

The electricity distributor provider must then do one of the following:

• Pay the claim in full,
• Pay an amount that leaves the consumer no worse off, either by replacing the item with one of similar age, function or appearance, or by repairing it so it works and looks substantially the same, or
• Reject the claim.

Having business equipment does not exclude the claim

The electricity distributor says some of the equipment at Mr H’s home is used for a family run business. Mr H says he is no longer involved in that business and uses the equipment for personal purposes.

The compensation scheme set out in Schedule 4 of the Code applies to residential customers. Business customers can also use the scheme, but only if they can show they have taken reasonable steps to reduce any loss or damage.

A residential customer is someone who buys electricity mainly for personal, household or domestic use at the supply address. People who occasionally do business-like tasks at home, or have hobbies that look like business activities, do not have to meet the reasonable steps requirement if the electricity is mainly used for their home.

In this case, the equipment is at Mr H’s home and the electricity is supplied on a residential tariff. The electricity distributor has not provided satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that the electricity supplied was mainly for business purposes. I am therefore satisfied the electricity was used mainly for personal, household or domestic purposes, even if there were some business-like tasks. Because of this, the requirement that would apply to business customers to show they take reasonable precautions does not apply here.

Mr H’s property damage claim

Mr H made a claim for damage to several items.

The electricity distributor assessed the claim and did not dispute Mr H’s claim for several miscellaneous items including a phone charger, night light and other items totalling $385.65.

The remaining items in dispute are:

• a lathe
• a granulator
• three garage door motors
• a Harmony Hub and keyboard
• an amplifier.

Mr H’s claim for these items is considered below.

The lathe

Mr H provided two statements from suitably qualified people confirming that the lathe was damaged by the unauthorised voltage event. The first was a statement from his electrician attached to the original claim. The second was a quote from another qualified electrician, noting that the report was prepared following a high voltage injection at the property.

Clause 2.2(c) of the Code requires Mr H to provide information about his claim, including quotes, receipts or other evidence. As part of his claim, Mr H provided information that a replacement lathe would cost $18,645. He also supplied a quote from a suitably qualified electrician estimating the cost of repair at $7,656.

Under clause 3 of the Code, the electricity distributor must then assess the claim and either pay or reject it. If the electricity distributor decides to pay the claim, it must repair or replace the item so the consumer is no worse off. If it rejects the claim, I can assess whether that decision was fair and reasonable.

The electricity distributor rejected Mr H’s claim to repair the lathe. It had the opportunity to obtain its own assessment of the repair cost. For example, it could have arranged for its own electrician to inspect the lathe. Although the electricity distributor indicated that it wished to do so, it did not proceed and has not pursued this option since. The available evidence indicates that repairing the lathe is significantly cheaper than replacing it. To ensure Mr H is left no worse off, it is fair and reasonable the electricity distributor should pay $7,656 to cover the costs of repair.

The granulator

Mr H has provided a statement from a suitably qualified person confirming that the granulator was damaged by the unauthorised voltage variation. The electricity distributor has rejected Mr H’s claim for $4,290 to replace the granulator, even though this amount is less than the $7,656 it would cost to repair the item.

Under the Code, Mr H should be left no worse off by receiving compensation that enables the replacement of his property with one of substantially the same age, functionality and appearance. Neither party has been able to identify another comparable granulator available for replacement. Having regard to the principle that the consumer should be left no worse off, it is fair and reasonable that the electricity distributor should compensate Mr H $4,290 to replace the granulator.

The three garage door motors

Mr H has claimed $2,970 for the replacement of three garage door motors. The quote does not state whether the motors were damaged because of the unauthorised voltage event. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I make my decision on the balance of probabilities; that is, what I consider to have been most likely, based on the available evidence and wider circumstances. Having done so, I consider it is fair and reasonable to proceed on the basis that the motors were damaged as a result of the unauthorised voltage variation, as this is recorded in the original claim form and Mr H obtained a contemporaneous quote for garage door motor replacement.

Mr H’s claim is for a particular brand of garage door motors. The electricity distributor has identified suitable alternative motors costing up to $400 each and considers an additional $300 for installation to be reasonable. These alternative motors are advertised as being compatible with every garage door brand in Australia and come with a 5 year warranty.

The damaged motors were eight years old. It is fair and reasonable to rely on the type of motor identified by the electricity distributor rather than the more expensive brand motors, as this leaves Mr H no worse off and provides equivalent functionality. While the installation fee of $300 is a modest estimate, I have reviewed standard rates for electricians in 2026 and it is consistent with three hours of labour within the range of those rates.

The electricity distributor should therefore pay $1,500 to compensate Mr H for the three garage door motors.

The Harmony Hub and keyboard

Mr H supported his claim of $830 with a photograph of the Harmony Hub and keyboard, along with a screenshot showing their replacement cost. The electricity distributor advised that it had completed a detailed assessment and offered to pay $830 for the cost of replacing this item.

While the electricity distributor later withdrew that offer, it did not explain why the amount claimed by Mr H was no longer appropriate, nor did it put forward an alternative valuation or basis for a different outcome. In my view, the electricity distributor had the opportunity to share evidence of an alternative valuation or request further information during its initial assessment when it had initially agreed to pay the replacement cost. It had further opportunities following a Fair and Reasonable Assessment and Recommendation issued by my office during this complaint.

On balance, I consider Mr H’s evidence of the value of the Harmony Hub and Keyboard to be sufficient. The electricity provider initially accepted that valuation after conducting its own assessment and has not subsequently provided evidence to contradict this valuation. I therefore consider it is fair and reasonable that the electricity distributor pay Mr H $830 for the Harmony Hub and keyboard.

The amplifier

Mr H claimed $749 for the replacement of a Sony DA777ES amplifier. He says two independent repair specialists informed him that replacement would be more economical than repair. The electricity distributor initially offered $100, which Mr H declined. It did not request an assessment report at the time, instead carrying out its own research into the amplifier’s value, but was unable to identify any comparable items. Following this, Mr H agreed to a compromise amount of $374.50, despite disagreeing with the electricity distributor’s reasoning.

The electricity distributor advised my office it would no longer pay that agreed amount because Mr H had not provided a statement confirming the damage was caused by an unauthorised voltage variation. While the electricity distributor could have requested this information during its original assessment, it did not do so. At the time the compromise was reached, the dispute was about the reasonable replacement cost of the amplifier, not whether it had been damaged.

Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive, or contradictory (as some of it is here), I make my decision on the balance of probabilities; that is, what I consider most likely to have happened in light of the available evidence and wider circumstances. Having done so, I consider it most likely that the amplifier was damaged by the unauthorised voltage variation, along with other equipment which have been confirmed by suitably qualified personnel as having been damaged in this way.

Neither party has provided evidence of comparable market value for the amplifier, and the earlier compromise offer has been withdrawn by the electricity distributor. In that context, I have made my own assessment of reasonable replacement value. Considering online evidence of market value for a used amplifier of the same model (listed at $349 USD), I consider it fair and reasonable to allow $590 for the amplifier’s replacement cost, being $490 AUD for the used amplifier and a further $100 for shipping.

For the reasons set out above, my final decision is that an unauthorised voltage variation event occurred and that Mr H is entitled to compensation under Schedule 4 of the Code for property damaged as a result.

Applying the Code requirement that the consumer be left no worse off, I consider it fair and reasonable that the electricity distributor must, if Mr H accepts, pay him $15,251.65 for the following:

• $385.65 for the agreed miscellaneous items
• $7,656 to repair the lathe
• $4,290 for the replacement of the granulator
• $1,500 for the replacement of the garage door motors
• $830 for the Harmony Hub and keyboard
• $590 for the amplifier.

Catherine Wolthuizen
Ombudsman, EWOV