|
For immediate release
20 November, 2002
Electricity
Complaints Commissioner's first recommendation accepted
Electricity Complaints Commissioner Judi
Jones has had her first recommendation for settlement of a
complaint accepted by both the customer and the electricity
retailers concerned.
The customer has been compensated $600 for
a switch from one property to another that went wrong and
resulted in an untimely disconnection (for more details see
decision) just as weekend visitors
arrived. The complainant and their visitors arrived home to
find no electricity and no pump, resulting in the loss of
water supply. The company that inadvertently rejected the
switch and had the property disconnected paid $400 in compensation.
The company that was supposed to be supplying the electricity
but hadn't notified the customer that his switch had been
rejected paid $200.
"I am pleased that the investigation
has resulted in changes in procedures at one of the electricity
retail companies concerned and these changes will benefit
other customers," Ms Jones says.
"There were multiple errors in the systems
of both companies. The customer had done all the right things
to ensure a smooth switch and should never have been disconnected."
"The complaint was one of the commission's
early files and has proved a learning curve", Ms Jones
says.
"While the complaint initially seemed
to be about a small issue, the causes of the customer being
disconnected were quite complex and took a long time to investigate.
"The complaint came in February, only
shortly after we had set up office and so the companies were
still getting used to the complaints process and how it works."
Ms Jones says she advises both the customer
and the company or companies concerned of her intention to
make a recommendation and sets out what is proposed in writing.
Both the customer and the company have 20 working days to
make further submissions.
During that time this customer did make submissions
that resulted in the commissioner increasing the amount of
compensation to them.
"They have remained with their electricity
retailer and the relationship is good. The retail manager
sent a bunch of flowers and a genuine letter of apology which
has cemented the relationship between them."
Ms Jones can publish details of her recommendations
as long as no party is identified. However, if a company does
not accept a recommendation but the customer does, the commissioner
can issue an award that is binding on the company. In this
instance she can name the company.
Set up in August last year, the Electricity
Complaints Commission scheme is designed to create a one-stop-shop
where consumers can get independent help with complaints about
their electricity company. The scheme covers electricity lines
and retail companies that are members.
Ms Jones was appointed commissioner in January
this year. The commissioner can look into almost any complaint
about a member company, excluding the amount companies charge
for their services. As the New Zealand electricity market
is not regulated, companies can make their own commercial
decisions about charges. However, the commissioner can check
that a company has applied its tariffs appropriately.
Complaints must first go through the member
companies' in house complaints processes. If a consumer is
unhappy with a company's decision, or it has taken longer
than 20 working days to resolve, he or she can complain to
the commissioner at no charge. The commissioner can handle
issues that have occurred since October 1, 2001 only.
Her decisions are binding on the company
involved, but if the consumer doesn't accept a decision, he
or she can proceed to the disputes tribunal or go through
the court system.
ENDS
For more information contact:
Josie Vidal
Communications/Publicity Officer,
Electricity Complaints Commission.
Tel: (04) 914-4526
e-mail: j.vidal@electricitycomplaints.co.nz
Case
Details
Family A was moving. In mid November 2001,
they phoned their electricity retailer (company X) to give
final readings from their old property and switch their account
to a new property, using the same electricity retailer. A
called X again on move in day to give start reads for the
new property. O, the person moving out of the property, contacted
their electricity retailer (Company Y) to give final readings
in late November, 2001.
At 2.43 pm on December 13, 2001 the switch
request was rejected because Company Y had not issued customer
O's final account. Later that afternoon (at 4:01pm), Company
Y processed customer O's final account.
By January 3, 2002 A had not received an
account from Company X. They contacted X's call centre and
were told their switch request had been inadvertently cancelled.
A 45-minute conversation ensued and finished with A being
told "all will be OK". Company X sent a new switch
request.
At 11:54am on January 8, 2002 Company Y,
believing the property to be vacant, instructed its contractor
to disconnect family A's property. On that same day (at 1:21pm),
the switch from Company Y to Company X was accepted. But Company
Y failed to tell the contractor there was now no need to disconnect
A.
Three days later, Company Y's contractor
arrived at the "vacant" property. Family A was not
there, having gone to purchase supplies for weekend visitors.
The contractor noted that a "car and dog were present"
but disconnected anyway. The A's arrived home with their visitors
to no electricity, no pump and the resulting loss of water
supply. The weekend visitors left. A phoned Company Y, but
the call centre was unsympathetic. Company X restored power
within 4 hours, and offered $25.00 for phone calls and spoilt
ice cream. A contacted the Electricity Complaints Commission
and sought compensation for the fact that they felt humiliated
and that the companies had failed to protect customer interests.
Who was at fault?
The Electricity Complaints Commissioner found
that there were multiple errors in the systems of both companies.
Family A had done everything they could to have a smooth switch,
but had been disconnected. She issued a recommendation calling
for compensation of $400 from Company Y and $200 from Company
X. Family A accepted the recommendation, partly because the
companies had made changes so other customers wouldn't be
subjected to the same problem. While family A wanted more
money in compensation, they felt it was time to settle their
complaint.
 top
|
