UTILITIES DISPUTES CASE NUMBER 23787
Recommendation - upheld
Ms K complained about her network company disconnecting, without notice, the electricity supply to the rented property she lived in.
The network company said it disconnected the supply because the property owner had not paid the bills for network charges.
Ms K disputed the network company’s right to disconnect the electricity supply for a debt that was not hers.
The network company said it had the right to disconnect Ms K's electricity supply because of the debt.
Ms K and the network company were unable to settle the complaint between them and asked the Commissioner to recommend a settlement.
The Commissioner upheld the complaint and recommended the network company pay Ms K $300 compensation for disconnecting the electricity supply without notice, causing Ms K stress and inconvenience.
The Commissioner found:
- The network company did not make efforts to warn Ms K before disconnection
- The network company had correct contact details for Ms K
- The network company caused Ms K stress and inconvenience by disconnecting the electricity
- The relevant legislation means the network company should not have disconnected the electricity when Ms K did not owe network charges
Both parties accepted the final recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner as Acting Commissioner and the complaint was settled.