In deciding whether to award monetary compensation in a complaint, we will assess, on the balance of probabilities, if:

• the transmission company was under an obligation to act (or not act) in a certain way and failed to, or should have known its action or inaction could cause damage
• the transmission company’s conduct caused loss or harm to the landholder, and
• the appropriate remedy to address the damage is compensation.

A landholder doesn’t need to request compensation. We can assess whether compensation is appropriate based on the circumstances of the complaint.

When considering whether a landholder should be compensated, we expect the landholder to:

• bear the normal degree of inconvenience experienced when a problem occurs, and
• take reasonable steps to manage the situation and mitigate any loss.

We may determine that compensation is an appropriate remedy for different types of loss suffered by a landholder, such as:

• financial loss — when a landholder suffers a direct monetary loss caused by a transmission company’s conduct, and
• non-financial loss — when a transmission company’s conduct impacts a landholder, such as causing unreasonable inconvenience, frustration and stress.

A landholder may experience both types of loss on the same set of facts and we may consider it reasonable that a transmission company compensate for both.

No matter the compensation sought, we review each complaint on its individual merits and the outcome will depend on the circumstances of the complaint.

We may also consider it fair and reasonable that a transmission company take some sort of action that does not involve compensation. Examples of other types of remedies include a transmission company:

• providing a landholder with the requested biosecurity management plan, or amending a biosecurity plan to deal with a particular issue
• attending a landholder’s property on a specified date to discuss accessing a site via an alternate, less inconvenient route
• issuing an apology
• attending a conference call to discuss access arrangements
• updating contact details or incorrect information
• providing further details or information about planned access.

It’s also open to us to take the view that no remedy or action is required if we’re not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a transmission company’s conduct caused financial or non-financial loss.

Remedies for financial loss

Financial loss occurs when a landholder suffers direct monetary loss due to a transmission company’s conduct.

Examples include:

• unreasonable costs incurred to make alternative arrangements during land access,
• costs incurred to rectify damages or privacy breaches,
• financial losses due to relying on incorrect information, and
• expenses incurred to prove the transmission company caused the damage.

The purpose of paying financial loss is to restore a landholder financially to their original position, had the transmission company not acted or failed to act.

Remedies we may decide to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances include:

• compensation for property damage caused by a transmission company
• performing works to address the damage and reinstate the landholder to their original position
• payments to contribute toward repairs, such as replacing a fence.

Remedies for non-financial loss

Non-financial loss occurs when a transmission company’s conduct causes unreasonable inconvenience, frustration and stress (or other such impact) to a landholder.

Examples of non-financial loss can include:

• unreasonable delays causing avoidable inconvenience
• inadequate advice or reasons causing confusion or frustration
• errors causing distress, frustration or inconvenience
• an unreasonable, harsh or discriminatory action causing emotional harm
• flawed administrative processes or procedural deficiencies causing avoidable delay
• privacy breaches causing distress, humiliation or reputational harm.

Remedies aim to acknowledge the harm caused by a transmission company’s shortcomings or failings.

As a remedy, we may require the transmission company to send a letter of apology or provide clarifying information.

There are other factors that can influence our decision on awarding compensation.

• Delayed damage
  Damage might not be immediately evident after an incident. In such cases, the landowner may need to explain the delay in noticing the damage, describe the changes they have observed and their associated timeframes and link the damage to the transmission company’s action.
  
• Reasonable precautions
  If the landholder didn’t take reasonable precautions to minimise the loss, damage or impact, this could affect compensation. Reasonable precautions depend on the circumstances and the type of loss the landholder suffers.
  
• Proportionate responsibility
  If a transmission company’s conduct only partially caused the damage, we may apportion the remedies based on the transmission company’s contribution to the landholder’s loss.

Land Access Code of Practice: esc.vic.gov.au/electricity-and-gas/codes-guidelines-and-policies/land-access-code-practice