Electricity Case Studies

Case 1 - Cheaper heating?

Case 2 - Was the gate locked?

Case 3 - The hottest of hot, hot water

Case 4 - Correct advice?

Case 5 - An accident waiting to happen?

Gas Case Studies

If you would like to see some examples of current case studies of gas complaints, you may wish to access the following:

• Victorian Energy and Water Ombudsman web site. The link is: http://www.ewov.com.au/html/case.html#gascasestudies
• New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman web site. The link is: http://www.ewon.com.au/case_studies/5_2.html

Cheaper heating?

The following case concerns the HydroHeat tariff, a cheaper residential hot water and space heating tariff available to customers who install direct wire heaters with an output of 3.5kW or more in a main living area. This can be a fixed fan heater, a heat pump, ceiling or underfloor heating.

Mr W made a complaint on behalf of his father. Two years ago, an electrical contractor had carried out an upgrade to the home’s electrical wiring and installed a heat pump. Recently, several more heat banks were installed at the home, at which time it was identified that when the heat pump was originally installed, the electricity company had failed to change the customer over to the HydroHeat tariff.

When the Ombudsman contacted the entity, it appeared that the electrical contractor had provided notice to Aurora at the time he installed the heat pump, but due to an oversight on the entity’s part, this notice had not been acted upon. The entity then scheduled the change over immediately and provided the customer with an adjustment on his account for the difference in the tariff pricing over that period of time.

[TOP]

Was the gate locked?

Mr L was on holiday and away from home. Not long after his return, he received his quarterly electricity account. He was surprised to note that the account was quite high and when he rang the entity to query this, he was advised that it was an estimated account because his gate had been locked. Mr L answered that he did not think this was an accurate estimation of his consumption and that although there was a padlock on the gate, it had not actually been locked. He then requested a re-read of the meters. He was advised that this was possible, but that he would have to pay the appropriate fee.

Mr L contacted the Ombudsman because he did not believe that he should be penalised for the company’s failure to read the meter. As the meter reading had occurred 8 days after the complainant’s return from holiday, the Ombudsman asked the company to clarify whether the meter reader had found the gate locked. This information was not available, so a team leader carried out a site visit. They found there was a lock on the gate but it was not actually locked. The entity then agreed to take the complainant’s word that the gate had not been locked. The meter was re-read and the complainant was sent a much lower revised account. The Ombudsman suggested to the complainant that he might wish to consider removing the lock from the gate so as to avoid any future misunderstanding.

[TOP]

The hottest of hot, hot water

Ms C received her first electricity account at her new premises, the hot water component of which was $642. The total of the bill was $776. She queried this with the electricity entity, who then arranged a check reading, as the hot water meter reading did appear to be extremely high for a household of one. The check reading showed that the original reading was correct, so the entity advised the customer that she would be charged for the check read and this would be added to her account.

However, further investigation found that an incorrect commencement meter reading was taken when arranging the new connection for Ms C. This had resulted in an additional 8,000 units charge. The entity then provided an amended account and a $30 Customer Charter payment to the complainant. The entity also agreed to pay the costs incurred by the complainant who had sought the services of a plumber to check the hot water cylinder for any faults.

[TOP]

Correct Advice?

Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman about incorrect advice provided to him by Aurora Energy, which had resulted in extra costs of $500. Mr Y alleged that Aurora Energy came on site to discuss with him his new electricity supply requirements. Aurora was to install a steel pole and at the site visit, the designer suggested two options for its placement, both of which would be suitable for Mr Y’s present point of attachment. Mr Y alleged that the designer had suggested his electrical contractor could put a bracket on the point of attachment to provide clearance.

However, when the electrical contractor came to connect the new mains to the point of attachment he advised Mr Y that he was not able to use a bracket as a bracket would need to be at an angle and this would not be acceptable under current standards. The contractor advised Mr Y that an extra $500 would be needed to re position his point of attachment.

Aurora Energy refuted that incorrect advice had been given to the complainant and that on the contrary, the complainant had been advised that he would need to relocate his point of attachment. To substantiate its position, Aurora provided the Ombudsman with a sketch created by the designer on site and a later system plan. The hand written notes on the sketch read “Advised customer he will need electrical contractor to relocate mains. Pole to this position in agreement with the customer.”

However, the sketch and the later system plan showed the point of attachment as remaining the same. When the designer was questioned as to why the map showed the point of attachment as remaining the same, he was not able to provide an explanation. During the investigation, the designer, the electrical contractor and the complainant were interviewed. The Ombudsman recommended that Aurora Energy meet the additional costs of $500 as on the available evidence, she was unable to be satisfied that clear and informed explanations of the options available to the complainant had been provided to him. Aurora Energy agreed to the recommendation. The Ombudsman also recommended that to avoid any future misunderstanding between customers and personnel, Aurora should follow up any on-site discussions with a letter confirming the agreed outcomes.

[TOP]

An accident waiting to happen?

Mr P contacted the Ombudsman because he was extremely concerned at the state of the poles and wires on his street. He advised that on his property was an Aurora pole which was braced to support a larger pole on the corner of the street. The larger pole carried the normal 240v wires as well as having high voltage wires on top and the span to the next pole on the street, according to Mr P, was excessive. This was of concern to him, but the major concern was that the bracing wire on the pole on Mr P’s property was slack and because the three phase line to his workshop came from this pole, the three phase line was taut and therefore bracing the pole on the street. Mr P was concerned that this would pull the end off his workshop, an event which had actually happened several years ago and had incurred considerable cost to Mr P to replace.

In answer to the Ombudsman’s request for a response to the complaint, Aurora Energy carried out a site visit to Mr P’s property. Aurora advised the Ombudsman that it would install a ground stay on the pole providing the service connection to Mr P’s property which would allow for restraining of the service to the workshop and reduce any tension on the line and subsequently any tension on Mr P’s building.

[TOP]

Tasmania Online | Service Tasmania | Contact | Top | Home