Annual Report 2022

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER | DISCONNECTED BEFORE ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED

Paying $20 a month, Val had gas arrears of $4,297 and, combined with electricity, total energy arrears of $9,064.88. Val's gas was disconnected soon after they agreed to switch to another retailer in return for a full waiver of their energy arrears. Val arranged to switch, but the transfer couldn't be completed because the gas had been disconnected.

The energy retailer responded to our Investigation, confirming Val's arrears. It also confirmed its offer of a full waiver if Val switched to another retailer, and its reconnection condition of $1,000 upfront. Once Val complained to EWOV this offer conflicted with EWOV's Reconnection/Derestriction Policy.

When Val's gas was still not reconnected a week later, the complaint was upgraded to Final Stage under our Complaint Upgrade Policy. Following discussion with both parties, we confirmed to the retailer that Val accepted its offer and understood that the gas reconnection was only for the purpose of enabling account transfer. The retailer agreed to reconnect. The complaint was closed. 2021/14142

We also opened an Investigation into whether the disconnection of Val's gas was wrongful. Our Investigation found that a wrongful disconnection payment wasn't applicable because, in its disconnection of the gas, the retailer had followed the law. EWOV/2022/0007665.

SMALL BUSINESS | METER RELOCATION DELAYS | FAIR AND REASONABLE ASSESSMENT

Wanting to make changes within their shop/residence property, Danny requested the relocation of the electricity meters. After emailing the request form to the retailer, Danny's electrician found out it had to be lodged online. All up, it took four months to get the works completed. The delays were due to a combination of factors — the need to submit amended paperwork, the distributor having to move the supply line to a different location, Danny's electrician installing the wrong meter, and then the meter failing an inspection.

Danny was seeking compensation for the loss of $1,734 in monthly rental income, for poor customer service, and for significant stress. The retailer offered $1,240.40 ($1,040.40 for loss of rental income and a $200 customer service payment).

Our Investigation concluded that the retailer had addressed each aspect of Danny's complaint on a fair and reasonable basis. We found that the retailer was responsible for a delay of 18 days, which equated to loss of rent of $1,026.18. This was less than the amount offered by the retailer. Having listened to the call recordings between Danny and the retailer, we agreed with the retailer's offer of a customer service payment of $200.

EWOV doesn't investigate claims for injuries to a customer's psychological or emotional state, but we provided Danny with information on how they might make a claim through other processes. 2021/8232

BUSINESS CUSTOMER | LOSS LINKED TO PLANNED OUTAGES DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN

Faced with a planned power outage, Gus hired a generator and paid an electrician to connect it to keep their business running. When the generator couldn't be connected by opening time, Gus had to cancel bookings. Gus said it cost them around $4,000. Faced with a second planned outage, and business stresses due to COVID-19 lockdowns, Gus contacted EWOV seeking compensation.

After an Assisted Referral, Gus returned saying the distributor maintained the works were essential. It also told Gus the business should have plans in place to deal with power outages.

Responding to our Investigation, the distributor said the two outages were needed to connect a new customer. It showed it had sent Gus the correct notification for each outage, as well as two SMS reminders each time. It said business customers need to plan for electricity outages, and that it doesn't offer compensation unless the outage causes damage to property or appliances.

We confirmed to Gus that the distributor's actions were in line with its rights under the Electricity Distribution Code of Practice — it may interrupt supply for planned maintenance, repair, or system augmentation [5.3] with at least 4 business days' written notice of the interruption [5.5.1 (a)]. We also highlighted the Code requirement that a business customer must take reasonable precautions to minimise risk of loss or damage to its equipment, premises or business [16 (c)].

While not happy with the Investigation outcome, Gus said they understood the Code provisions. 2021/9580

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER | SOLAR TARIFF RATES

Jerry said that they signed up to a single-rate solar tariff based on information on their retailer's website. After installing solar, their first bill showed they were on a Time of Use (TOU). We provided Jerry with an Assisted Referral to a higher-level contact within the retailer. Jerry said they were first told that their previous single-rate tariff could be restored, but then they were told it couldn't be. The retailer offered an account credit. Their next bill was based on the TOU tariff again. Jerry was concerned the solar contract and marketing was misleading from the beginning.

We opened an Investigation. The retailer confirmed that Jerry had signed up to a single-rate tariff. However, when the local electricity distributor configured the meter at their property for solar, the tariff was changed to TOU. It said it had raised a tariff change request with the distributor and, in early October 2021, the distributor had changed Jerry's tariff back to single-rate. It apologised that Jerry's most recent bill was still on TOU. It sent Jerry a new single-rate bill and increased its offer to $350, which Jerry accepted. Jerry was satisfied with the outcome of our Investigation. The complaint was closed. 2021/11490

LARGE ELECTRICITY USER | RETAILER OBJECTION TO TRANSFER

The operations of Darcy's business were severely affected by COVID-19. Darcy was selling the business and wanted to be released from the four-year electricity contract struck in 2019, saying they hadn't agreed to a four-year term. The electricity retailer wouldn't agree to the transfer unless the business paid an early termination fee of just under $100,000.

Responding to our Investigation, the electricity retailer provided evidence that the signed four-year contract had been emailed to the retailer by the energy broker engaged by Darcy's business. The retailer also provided a copy of a letter of authority between Darcy's business and the energy broker, which confirmed that the broker had the authority to make decisions and had selected the four-year term. The retailer offered Darcy some other options, all of which would require the business to remain with the retailer.

Our Investigation confirmed that the retailer hadn't received any information to indicate that Darcy was either unaware of the four-year period or didn't consent to it. We assessed that the early termination fee was payable if Darcy wanted to close the account before the contract period ended. We advised Darcy to contact the energy broker directly if they were concerned about how it had acted on behalf of their business. The complaint was closed. 2021/8339