From April to June 2021, we closed nine energy systemic issues identified through our case handling.
Reconciliation of concessions
An energy retailer completed a reconciliation of its concession file with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) (then known as the Department of Health and Human Services). The process identified a number of forms that had incorrect excess gas eligibility dates. The retailer took action, sending a letter and new forms to approximately 5,700 affected customers, along with a reply paid envelope. It will continue to work with DFFH to process forms manually in the meantime. We were satisfied with the steps taken by the retailer. SI/2021/24
No payment due date
Our case handling highlighted an issue with an energy retailer’s payment plan letters. The letters did not show the date by which each payment must be made. The letters did not appear to comply with clause 81(5) of the Energy Retail Code (ERC). The Essential Services Commission (ESC) gave us advice and we issued a notice to the retailer to address the issue. The retailer followed the advice and we were satisfied with the action, noting that any redress should be considered on a case-by-case basis. SI/2020/20.
Review of intent of contract
From one of our cases, we identified that a retailer’s bills did not appear to align with customer contracts. A clause in a customer’s contract suggested that the service charge would be divided by the number of sites in the customer’s retirement community. The retailer explained that the figure was to be multiplied by the number of sites before being divided and to simply divide did not make commercial sense. The retailer agreed to remove the phrase ‘divided by the number of sites’ from its contracts to save any confusion. We reviewed the intent of the contract and relevant case law and found that the 166 affected customers had been billed with the intent of the contract. SI/2020/17.
Confusing language
We received cases about a retailer’s renewal letters, suggesting some customers found the word ‘similar’ to be confusing. They understood the word to be referring to the discount amount, however, the retailer suggested the word referred to the similarities of the plan’s attributes. The retailer agreed to change the wording of its letters. We were satisfied that the wording was compliant and that it was only clarity of the word ‘similar’ that was required. SI/2020/35.
Not meeting obligations under clause
We investigated a retailer’s bills and suggested that it had not met its obligations under clause 25 of the Energy Retail Code. The retailer conducted a review and found that all but clause 25(1)(m) were included in its bills. The retailer is taking steps to rectify the issue and the ESC is considering the investigation. SI/2021/28.
Missing paperwork
Our investigation identified that a retailer could not find the medical cooling concession paperwork for a number of its customers following archiving. The retailer communicated to 641 affected customers and requested new signed forms. We formed the view that redress may be required for certain customers and that this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. SI/2021/36.
Billing delays
We received complaints from several customers about billing delays with an embedded network retailer. The retailer advised that a third-party meter reader had not been reading meters and advised that it expected improvement over 2020. The retailer is no longer a member of EWOV and the matter is being considered by the ESC. SI/2020/37.
Transfer without consent investigation
We identified an increase in complaints about a retailer transferring customers without their consent. The retailer denied transferring without consent and provided call recordings. We were not satisfied that explicit informed consent was given in the call recordings supplied and determined that inappropriate sales tactics were used. We did note that the nature of calls improved between 2018 and 2020. The matter is being considered by the ESC and Consumer Affairs Victoria. SI/2019/29.
Missing words in reminder notices
We investigated a breach of clause 109(5)(d) of the ERC about a retailer’s failure to include the words ‘complaint or dispute’ in reminder notices. The retailer agreed to include the words ‘complaint or dispute’ moving forward. There were 1,990 affected customers and the retailer agreed to apply goodwill credits of $50 for active accounts and $25 for customers with an inactive account and existing debt. The ESC will determine whether Wrongful Disconnection Payments apply for each of the disconnections. SI/2020/4.
