Skip to main content
ALERT

Greater Western Water billing issues may have affected you. Click for more information or to raise a complaint.

1800 500 509
Start a complaint Start a complaint
1800 500 509
Annual reports

On this page:

Ombudsman’s message

Catherine Wolthuizen

"At EWOV, we have witnessed first-hand the profound shifts underway, driven by the energy transition and climate imperatives, technological innovation and difficulties, and evolving consumer needs and expectations."

The 2024/2025 financial year was another transformative period for energy and water markets in Victoria. At EWOV, we have witnessed first-hand the profound shifts underway, driven by the energy transition and climate imperatives, technological innovation and difficulties, and evolving consumer needs and expectations. These changes present a rare opportunity to reimagine our energy and water markets, and we are ready to play our part.

Demand for our services remained high. In the 2023/2024 financial year, we reported a 23% increase in cases compared with the previous financial year. In 2024/2025, we received 19,529 cases, a 4% increase against the 2023/2024 financial year. While the most recent growth in overall cases is modest, this headline figure masks the very significant increase in complexity of the matters we received.

In the 2024/2025 year, we experienced a 32% increase in cases progressing to investigation. This reflects inconsistent complaint handling among our scheme participants, but also a degree of persistence among consumers seeking a particular outcome to their complaint. That we were able to meet this increase in investigation demand is in part due to the strong performance of our new case handling process, which allows for early and clear identification of the elements of a complaint, and consistent and transparent delivery of fair and reasonable outcomes.

Read the report

Consumer stories

Solar

Incomplete solar installation leads to lost solar export credits

Solar metering | Jurisdiction | Evolving role of distribution

Liam* was dissatisfied with his distributor due to a solar connection delay. He told us he had installed solar in July 2021 but realised in 2024 that he had not received any solar export credits during that time. His distributor had advised that this was due to Liam’s solar installer providing incorrect address details on the Certificate of Electrical Safety (CES), leading to an incomplete solar connection process. The distributor told Liam that this could be rectified by submitting a new CES; however, Liam’s original solar installer was uncontactable.

Liam approached other solar installers who told him they could not issue a new CES for an old system that they had not installed. Liam’s distributor asserted that it was the consumer’s responsibility to provide the correct information, which Liam disputed as he was not notified of the error by the distributor or the solar installer. Liam was requesting that the distributor accept the existing CES with the incorrect address details and reconfigure the meter for solar export.

The distributor firmly denied accepting the incorrect CES, so Liam took steps to upgrade his solar system and submit a new CES and solar connection request to the distributor.

We considered the distributor’s role in the solar connection delay. The initial delay was caused by the solar installer’s failure to submit the correct paperwork to the distributor. Records showed that the distributor contacted the solar installer when the connection was not completed, but the solar installer did not respond, and the connection request was not completed. The distributor updated its processes in 2023, and this time contacted both the solar installer and the retailer, advising that address details needed to be corrected to complete the connection, and sent reminders two weeks later to both the solar installer and the retailer. When both parties failed to respond, the distributor closed the connection request.

The distributor asserted that, while it did have Liam’s contact details, its practice is to engage with the solar installer that is acting on the consumer’s behalf, and not the consumer.

We considered what resolution would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. We undertook a technical review of the data to determine the value of lost solar export credits. Based on the data, we deemed it would be realistic that Liam would have exported 50% of generation, amounting to over $750 in lost solar export credits. We assessed that the distributor did miss an opportunity to follow up directly with Liam when the solar installer and the retailer did not respond. We also assessed that the retailer missed an opportunity to contact Liam when the distributor notified it of the issue, and that Liam had a responsibility to regularly check his bills for issues. However, it was primarily the solar installer that caused the delay.

In this context, we considered it fair and reasonable for the distributor to provide a $250 customer service gesture in light of its role in the solar connection delay.

We advised Liam that he could make a separate complaint about the retailer; however, Liam would need to make a complaint to Consumer Affairs Victoria about the solar installer, as solar installers are not members of EWOV. We therefore did not have jurisdiction to address his complaint about the conduct or actions of the solar installer.

Liam and the distributor agreed to this resolution and the complaint was closed.

* Names have been changed

Billing

Long billing delay for bulk hot water

Estimated billing | Undercharging | Meter issues

Vandita* raised a complaint with EWOV relating to a backbill in January 2024 for over $1,300.

Vandita reported her bills are normally around $130 to $140. Vandita had contacted her retailer to question the high bill.

The retailer explained that Vandita had received estimated bills for a year, from November 2022 to November 2023. These bills were based on an estimate of 97 litres of consumption per day, taken from the average usage of the centralised bulk hot water unit for the building, which is allocated between connected households.

When the retailer obtained an actual meter read in mid-November 2023, it identified that Vandita’s actual average usage was approximately 220 litres per day. As a result, the retailer included the undercharged amount in the next bill, which was issued in January 2024.

During our investigation, the retailer reported it had been aware of a communications fault with Vandita’s meter since March 2023, but this was not fixed until mid-November 2023. We also found that, while the January 2024 backbill was based on the actual data obtained on 16 November 2023, the retailer did not account for the incorrect meter data that had previously been provided. The communications fault caused meter data issues as far back as 4 July 2022.

The Energy Retail Code of Practice allows a retailer to recover undercharged amounts in the four months before the date a consumer was notified of the undercharging, unless the undercharged amount was the consumer’s fault.

We determined that Vandita had been backbilled for 435 days but was not presented any information that indicated that she had contributed to or caused any of the meter data or billing issues. During this time, the retailer was aware the data was incorrect and made no attempts to either notify Vandita or to ensure the bills were as accurate as possible.

We believed it would not be fair and reasonable to recover the total billed amount because the available information showed the retailer made no attempts to complete an actual meter read within 12 months. If it had, the usage discrepancy would have been identified earlier. In closing the case, the retailer agreed to re-bill based on four months from the first notification of undercharge.

We also considered if the retailer’s offer of a $250 customer service gesture for the stress and inconvenience caused, and a payment plan for the amount owing (if needed) was fair and reasonable.

Both retailer and consumer accepted our Fair and Reasonable Assessment, and the case was closed.

* Names have been changed

Credit

Retailer requests large upfront payment to reconnect electricity

Hardship | Payment difficulty assistance | Disconnection

Luke* contacted us after his electricity was disconnected.

Luke told us he received a final disconnection notice for around $450 but had not received any prior notices. When Luke contacted his retailer to arrange for reconnection, it advised that the amount owing was close to $2,000. He told us he requested more time to make a payment, but the retailer refused and requested a $250 upfront payment to have the power reconnected.

Luke told us he was in payment difficulty, and that he offered to pay $20 in the short-term, but the retailer refused and did not offer any other payment difficulty assistance. Luke was requesting that his electricity be reconnected and for the retailer to discuss a manageable payment arrangement.

As part of our complaint handling process, we requested the retailer reconnect Luke’s electricity. The retailer confirmed the electricity was reconnected. We considered whether the retailer used its best endeavours to notify Luke of the impending disconnection. We reviewed the contact notes that showed the retailer made multiple attempts to contact Luke via email (his preferred method); however, the email on the account was no longer in use and Luke had not updated his contact details with the retailer. The retailer also issued one notice via mail, which Luke did not act on until after the electricity was disconnected.

We considered whether the retailer complied with its payment difficulty obligations under the Energy Retail Code of Practice. We found that the retailer complied with its obligations to provide information about payment difficulty assistance in disconnection notices to Luke, which were not acted on. However, we reviewed the correspondence and found that, although Luke expressed circumstances indicating payment difficulty, the retailer did not offer payment difficulty assistance and instead requested Luke make a large upfront payment to reconnect his electricity supply. Based on this, we found that, when Luke contacted the retailer after he had been disconnected, the retailer did not comply with its obligations under the Code.

To resolve the complaint, the retailer offered a $150 customer service gesture in recognition of its conduct during the post-disconnection phone calls and offered to contact Luke to discuss payment difficulty assistance, including the Utility Relief Grant (URG) and switching to a better offer. We assessed this as fair and reasonable.

Luke and the retailer agreed with our assessment, and the complaint was closed.

* Names have been changed

Snapshot

We received 19,529 cases* in 2024/2025, an increase of 4% compared to the previous financial year. We experienced a 32% increase in cases progressing to investigation.

9,581 cases received were about electricity, 6,459 cases were about gas and LPG, and 3,291 were about water.

Water cases had the sharpest increase — we received 122% more cases compared to the previous financial year.

Billing was the most common issue type at 11,104 cases received.

* ‘Cases’ includes enquiries, complaint enquiries, referrals and investigations. A consumer may have multiple cases as their issue progresses through our process. Case types have been mapped against previous case types for historical comparisons where possible.

Snapshot cases received data

Cases received

The majority of the cases we received were from residential consumers at 18,197, with cases from businesses equaling 1,138. Of the total 19,529 cases received, 5,728 cases related to consumers who identified as concession card holders.

More cases related to homeowners than renters — 8,701 vs 3,261.

The majority of cases originated via phone and our online complaint form (9,808 and 8,028 respectively).

Cases received data

Cases closed

We closed 18,248 cases in 2024/2025. Of these, 1,878 cases were investigations, with $1,610,896 provided by companies to their customers as a result of EWOV investigations.

Most of our investigations were categorised as moderate (1,299).

Cases closed data

Company data

Company data

This dashboard outlines the number of cases for each scheme participant by case type and the number of cases per 10,000 customers.

Glossary

How we group complaint issues:

Billing

Generating bills, sending bills, payment processes.

Credit

Unpaid bills and the action taken by energy and water providers to collect arrears.

Customer service

The level of service received or not received.

Land

How provider activities or network assets affect a consumer’s property.

Marketing

How electricity and gas retailers go about gaining new consumers.

Privacy

How a consumer’s personal information is handled.

Provision

Connection of a property to an energy or water network.

Supply

Physical delivery of the electricity, gas or water service.

Transfer

Switching an electricity or gas account to another energy retailer.

General enquiry

Cases that don’t fit under another category.