Goldsworthy & Goldsworthy v ACTEW Corporation Pty Ltd (Energy and Water)
[2013] ACAT 70
•10 April 2013
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GOLDSWORTHY & GOLDSWORTHY v ACTEW CORPORATION PTY LTD (Energy and Water) [2013] ACAT 70
EW 12/779
Catchwords: ENERGY AND WATER – excessive water use due to undetected water leak - high water meter reading largely as a result of ACTEW Water’s delay – water consumption on assumption that there was no leak – ACTEW Water’s duty to act in a timely manner
Subordinate
Legislation:Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2012
Tribunal: Mr. A. Morris – Registrar
Date of Orders: 10 April 2013
Date of Reasons for Decision: 18 October 2013
ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL EW 12/779
BETWEEN:
JOHN GOLDSWORTHY & JAN GOLDSWORTHY
Applicants
AND:
ACTEW CORPORATION PTY LTD
Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Mr. A. Morris – Registrar
DATE:10 April 2013
ORDER
The Tribunal Orders that:
The applicants are to pay $440.40 in full satisfaction of the invoice period
15 August 2012 – 26 October 2012.
………………………………..
Mr. A. Morris – Registrar
REASONS FOR DECISION
I have been requested to write reasons for my decision in this matter, handed down 10th April 2013. With apologies for the delay in doing this, these are they.
History and Chronology
On 10th May 2012, ACTEW Water issued a quarterly water and sewerage account in respect of the property at [Address Redacted] Kaleen, in the ACT.
The account was for $235, and was based on a water meter reading taken on 9th May 2012. It was paid by 30th May 2012.
On 15th August 2012, ACTEW Water again read the meter for the next quarterly account. It was unusually high, by a factor of about 20 times the previous accounts.
ACTEW Water internally decided to order a second reading before issuing the account. When I was told of this, I assumed that it was done as a means of assisting or informing the consumer about their water usage patterns. However, subsequent events suggest to me that the exercise was one of ensuring that the accounting was not in error.
The check reading was performed 26 days later, on 10th September 2012.
The check reading confirmed the high usage, and ACTEW Water prepared an invoice for the period 9 May 2012 to 15th August 2012, in the sum of $3,499. It did not refer this to the customer at this time.
The invoice was dated 12th September 2012, being 125 days after the previous invoice.
The Consumer Protection Code[1] clause 13.3 states that a utility must send a customer account to each customer at least every 120 days from the issue of the last customer account.
[1] See Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2012, made under the Utilities Act 2000.
On 23rd September 2012, the applicants received the invoice together with a letter from ACTEW Water dated 18th September 2012 advising of the possibility of a water leak.
On 24th September 2012, the applicants engaged a plumber to investigate. The plumber immediately located an underground leak, which was repaired at the cost of $2,508. The applicants paid this account.
ACTEW Water considered the plumber’s report, and applied its “undetected water leak policy”. This resulted in a rebate to the applicants of $2,500. The applicants did not dispute that account, and paid the adjusted sum of $999.24.
On 2nd November 2012, ACTEW Water issued an invoice for $2,820, for water usage in the period 15th August 2012 and 26th October 2012.
The applicants sought a review of this account on the grounds that the high reading was largely the result of ACTEW Water’s 5 week delay in notifying the applicants of the unusual high usage, which ACTEW Water knew about (but kept to themselves) from 15th August 2012.
The applicants requested that the review date from when they might reasonably have expected to be told of the problem, say 20th August 2012.
On 15th February 2013, ACTEW Water agreed that their delay in issuing the invoice delayed the customer’s ability to repair the leak, and applied a credit of $1,181.47, leaving the applicant to pay $1,638.32.
On 4th March 2013, ACTEW Water offered a further reduction in the account of $259.03, in respect of the 5-day over-run of their requirements under the Consumer Protection Code.
The applicants have calculated that the actual water usage for the disputed period, if there had been no leak, based on previous billing cycles, would have been $440.40 (allowing for a 7 day “leak period”).
Arguments
The applicants allege that by ACTEW Water not informing them of the leak immediately after the 15th August 2012 meter reading, they were prevented from immediately repairing the undetected leak, and thus reducing the amount of water they “used”.
They allege that ACTEW Water has not acted fairly or ethically.
They allege that ACTEW Water has contravened Clause 13.3 of the Consumer Protection Code which states that “a utility must send a customer account to each customer at least every 120 days from the issue of the last customer account”.
The respondent company alleges that it has credited a total amount of $3,681.47 to the applicants’ account, being $2,500 in respect of its undetected leaks policy and a further $1,181.47 in compensation for their delay in issuing the tax invoice which in turn delayed the applicants’ ability to repair the leak.
It has also offered a further $259.03 in respect of the 5-day overrun of their requirements under the Consumer Protection Code.
The respondent notes that it has also offered an interest free payment arrangement to the applicants to allow it time to bring its payments up to date.
Reasons for Decision
In approaching this, I was mindful of what I perceived to be the delay by the respondent in notifying the applicants of their situation. I was somewhat fortunate in having a preceding “normal” period against which to assess what in my view the applicants’ use of water had been.
Of course, I have made some assumptions. These are primarily:
a)that the applicants’ water usage has not varied since the last year; and
b) that the applicants would have fixed the leak immediately they were told about it (this is somewhat supported by the fact that they did in fact do so, albeit after suffering “bill-shock”).
Assume that there was no leak at all, and that only the normal water was consumed in the property over the period 10th May to 24th August. It is clear that the cost of such consumption (excluding supply charges) would have been in the region of around $445.00. That calculation is based on the assumption that the applicants would only have continued to use the same amount of water for 2 periods as they did in the same period for the previous 2 years.
To be exact, in that period in 2010 in the May and August bills, they used 59 kilolitres (kl), and in 2011, it was 45 kl.
In May 2012, they again used what for them was an average reading of 31 kl. But then, something happened.
In August 2012, instead of about 25 kl – their “usual” autumn/early winter usage – they used 726 kl, or about 30 times the expected amount.
Now, although the reading was taken on 15th August, and ACTEW Water had cause to believe at that time that SOMETHING was wrong, and wrong on the applicants’ side of the meter, they did not tell the applicants. They went ahead and ordered another reading.
This is a proper thing for them to have done, and no blame attaches to ACTEW Water for that. But some blame might attach to the respondents NOT telling the applicants at that point that there was an anomaly, and it looked like it was on their (the applicants’) side of the meter. Had they done that, then, this whole dispute might never have occurred.
But this was not to be. Not only did ACTEW Water not tell the applicants at that time, they took 26 days -from 15th August to 10th September - to get their check reading carried out. Notwithstanding that a bureaucracy has certain limitations inherent in its size and structure, I consider this to be an unreasonable delay, and one that is grossly discourteous to the applicants.
As we now know, the second reading confirmed the first, and the respondents then 2 further days later prepared an invoice for the period 9th May to 15th August for a sum that they had had reason to believe since 15th August was problematic.
But even then the respondents did not move with anything like haste. A letter was commissioned in their office on the 18th September – a further 8 days, with water gushing underground and unbeknownst to the applicants, but not the respondents – and was finally posted about 20th-21st September, with the invoice prepared on the 12th September 2013.
The respondents cannot even use the excuse that it was the weekend. The 18th September 2012 was a Tuesday. So they took almost all of a week to put the letter into the post and it was received by the applicants on the following Monday.
My view of the respondent’s management of what was a crisis of water wastage is that it was indifferent, bordering on negligent. It was certainly rude and dismissive, because the respondent’s initial means of dealing with it was to bill the applicant customers for the lot.
It was only after the applicants raised the issue that any form of redress was considered.
In considering this matter, I was struck by the fact that an organisation tasked with proper water management for the Territory appears unable to see past its accounts department when faced with a clear issue of water wastage on a serious (to the consumer) scale.
I note that in assessing the situation, the applicants upon being notified of the leak had it fixed within a day, accepted the ACTEW Water rebate for an undetected leak and paid the $999.24 difference for the September account. This of course referred to water “consumed” (i.e. went through the meter no matter where it ended up) in the period July – September 2012.
I note that although this bill was created on 12th September, it was not received by the applicants until 23rd September – 11 days later.
But then the respondent issued a further account for the period 15th August – 26th October 2012. This covered the period in which the leak had been fixed (24th September).
I accept that this account would never have arisen in this sum had the respondents advised the applicants of the problem in a timely manner.
I therefore suggest that the proper sum for this period should be assessed at the 2011 rate, which would be about $214.
In assessing the amount ordered for the amount of water payment that the Goldsworthy’s would have paid if there had been no leak, I adopted the calculations in their submission. That is:
Total usage over the period 15th August to 26th October (72 days) – 564 kl
Average Daily usage – 7.83 kl (i.e. 564/72)
Leak period – 15th August - 22nd August (7 days)
Consumption during leak period 54.8kl (7.83 x 7)
Charges during leak period
· First 39.456 kl @2.43 = $95.88 (as invoiced)
· Remaining 15.354 kl @ 4.86 = $74.62
Total in that period - $170.50
Consumption post leak period from 22nd August (65 Days)
Daily Usage during corresponding 2011 quarter is about .30 kl/day
Usage post leak period – 19.5kl (being .3 kl x 65 days)
Charges during post-leak period – 19.5 kl @$4.86 = $94.77
Plus the supply charges - $175.13
Gives a total of $440.40
I am aware that the respondent disputes this calculation. However, I believe that the respondent is not taking into account the delay of the respondent’s office in notifying the applicants from when it first reasonably became aware of the leak.
This is to say, I do not agree with the undetected leak period as being 34 days as alleged by the respondent. That it was is a function purely of the respondent’s inactivity in notifying the applicants in a timely manner.
Order
1.The applicants are to pay $440.40 in full satisfaction of the invoice period 15 August 2012 – 26 October 2012.
………………………………..
Mr. A. Morris – Registrar
PUBLICATION DETAILS
FILE NUMBER: | EW 12/779 |
PARTIES, APPLICANT: | JOHN GOLDSWORTHY & JAN GOLDSWORTHY |
PARTIES, RESPONDENT: | ACTEW CORPORATION PTY LTD |
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT | Self Represented |
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT | Ms. S. Truesdale - ACTEWAGL |
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS: | Mr. A. Morris |
DATES OF HEARING: | 10 April 2013 |
PLACE OF HEARING: | ACAT, Canberra |
0
0
0