Quattrocchi v International Solar Solutions Pty Ltd - [2014] QCAT 43

CITATION:

Quattrocchi v International Solar Solutions Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 43

PARTIES:	Mr Antonio Quattrocchi (Applicant)
v
International Solar Solutions Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO720/13

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

19 December 2013

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:	1. The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,123.60 within fourteen days.
CATCHWORDS:	Minor civil dispute – Solar Panel installation – where applicant seeking refund of installation price – where allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct – where allegations of defective and faulty solar panels – where solar system not operating at maximum performance output

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr Antonio Quattrocchi

RESPONDENT:

Mr Simon Gronow

REASONS FOR DECISION
The Applicant’s Case

This application was commenced by Mr Quattrocchi as a consumer dispute in QCAT’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction. Mr Quattrocchi had solar panels installed at his home at 2 Nakula Street in Gaven, Queensland. He is not happy with the installation and seeks a refund of $19,200.00 that he paid to International Solar Solutions (“ISS”) for the installation. He claims that the solar panel system he purchased is inadequate, that the Company ISS promised him that he would ‘never have a power bill again’ and that the system would produce ‘between 35-42Kw per day’, that the installation is of poor quality, that the ‘solar panels are faulty and that ISS have engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct’.
Mr Quattrocchi claims that he was introduced to ISS through a friend who worked for the company as a Sales Representative (“Sales Rep”). He said that he and his wife had a meeting with the Sales Rep in November 2012. He claims that he was advised that a 5kw system would be more than adequate to generate enough electricity to cover their current electricity bill and that he might even ‘receive a credit’.
Mr Quattrocchi said he initially asked for a quotation for a 6Kw system so that there would be sufficient electricity produced from the system. He said he gave the Sales Rep copies of their power bills so that they could calculate the amount of electricity they used and to ensure the system they chose would cover the amount of power they required.
Mr Quattrocchi said that the quotation for a 6Kw system was refused by Energex and that he and his wife therefore agreed with ISS to install a smaller 5Kw system. He said a quotation was then provided to them for the 5Kw unit which included an additional 2 solar panes to bring the total output up to 5.5Kw.
Mr Quattrocchi alleged that the Sales Rep gave them advice as to the location of the panels and did a search on Google Earth. He said they were told by the Sales Rep that the panels would be installed on the western side of the shed on their property. Mr Quattrocchi said he was happy about that as the panels would not be visible and could not be seen from the road.
Mr Quattrocchi said he gave the Sales Rep relevant documents including photos of the meter box, and a further quotation was provided for the installation of the smaller 5Kw system of $19,200.00. He said he paid the initial deposit of $3000.00 to ISS in December 2012 and waited for the panels to be installed. He said he was told that the panels would be installed in January 2013.
The panels were installed on 15 January 2013. Mr Quattrocchi said he was not at home when the panels and the system were installed. He stated that he paid the balance of the money owing for the solar panels of $16,200.00 on 14 January 2013.
Mr Quattrocchi claims that he left written instructions to the installers as to how he wanted the inverter fitted and how the cables were to be installed. He said when he returned home to view the works he was ‘pleasantly surprised’ to see the panels on the western side of the shed but was concerned about poor quality of workmanship. He said the inverter was ‘screwed to some scrap timber’ from his shed and cables were ‘exposed on the roof sheets and were poorly installed’.
The digital meter was installed by Energex on 4 February 2013. Mr Quattrocchi said he called Qelec who were the installers for ISS to discuss the poor quality of the installation. He said that they came to his home and inspected the installation. He said a person named ‘Peter Berkers who was the manager of Qelec’ came to his property in February 2013. He said Mr Berkers agreed that the ‘installation was of poor workmanship’. He said Mr Berkers agreed to send someone back to his property to rectify the works.
On the 10 April 2013 an employee of Qelec returned to Mr Quattrocchi’s property to inspect the works. He said the installation was modified and changed and that he was then happy with the final works.
Mr Quattrocchi said he became unhappy with the electricity bills he received after the solar panels installation. He said his electricity bills had not decreased by much. He said that he only saved $81.62 from the first bill he had received after installation. He said he was promised, and it was contained in his agreement or contract with ISS, that he would never get a power bill again. He said he called Mr Berkers again and asked him to come to the property to reinspect the installation. Mr Quattrocchi was not happy with the amount of energy being produced by the solar panels and the reduction in his electricity bill was not what he had expected.
Mr Berkers inspected the solar panels at the request of Mr Quattrocchi and it is alleged he stated to Mr Quattrocchi that the system was ‘connected well’ and that the power bill was an accurate reflection of the savings as the power companies would only give ‘14 cents per Kw’ credit.
Mr Quattrocchi said he was very unhappy with the way the solar panel system was performing as he was promised that ‘he would never receive another electricity bill and that his savings would be $2,7750.00 per annum’.
Mr Quattrocchi said he relied on the quotation and its contractual terms that he would never receive another power bill and the system he had purchased would potentially give him electricity credits. The quotations dated 16 November 2013 are for both systems, being 6 and 5Kw systems, at a cost of $20,300.00and $17,040.00 respectively.[1] The quotations do not refer to any expected electricity output or savings to power bills. Mr Quattrocchi relies on a letter dated 27 November 2012[2] as the contract that binds ISS to provide a system that will result in no more power bills for him and that the system would pay for itself.
[1]Documents attached to original claim.
[2]Exhibit 1.
Mr Quattrocchi says on the total current power savings it will take many years for the system to pay for itself.
The letter states that the:
20 Panel system will not only eliminate your current energy bill but will also allow for future increases in power costs which means each and every year your savings will increase. On today’s current power prices your savings will be $2,750.00 per annum and you will be paid out for any excess energy you don’t consume.
Further, the letter states that:
PLEASE NOTE THAT AT YOUR CURRENT ESTIMATED POWER USAGE, YOUR SOLAR IS LIKELY TO PAY FOR ITSELF WITHIN 5 YEARS OF INSTALLATION (from savings off your power bill & excess energy sold back to the grid).
Mr Quattrocchi said that based on the letter sent to him after he received the quotations, combined with discussions with the Sales Rep that he was convinced that the calculations of energy savings had been calculated based on their actual bills, specific power usage and the size of the system they were purchasing. He said that if he was told that his energy savings would be approximately $80-90 per quarter he would not have purchased the system as the savings would have been minimal. He said the two power bills[3] that followed the solar panel installations showed that there was only savings of $81.62 in May 2013 and $82.46 in August 2013.
[3]Documents attached to original claim.
Mr Quattrocchi said that he obtained a report from an independent expert being an Electrician who inspected the installation and provided evidence about the system. Mr Quattrocchi provided a report from Prestige Power dated 26 April 2013 prepared by Jason Reid. The report writer did not give sworn evidence and the report was not signed nor attached to any sworn affidavit or statutory declaration. The report stated that the electrical installation was ‘electrically safe and complied with the requirements of AS/NZS 3000 and any other standard applying to the electrical installation under the Electrical Safety Regulation and the Code of Practice Electrical Work Electrical Safety Act’.
The report states that the ‘existing installation contained many energy efficient appliances, LED lamps and a 5.5Kw network connected solar installation… Recommended that the Supply Authority meter be calibrated, and the direction of the solar panels on the roof be confirmed as correct’.
Many photos of the actual site, the roof, solar panels, the power box, the site and location of the inverter and a Google earth photo of the house and shed and context of the panels were provided to the tribunal by Mr Quattrocchi.
Mr Quattrocchi said he had also taken photos of the sun on his roof at various time of the day as it was suggested by ISS that the reason for the failure of the solar panels to reach maximum capacity was due to shade from overhanging trees.
Mr Quattrocchi contacted the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) and made a complaint against ISS. The letter from the OFT dated 15 August 2013[4] was provided to the tribunal. The OFT could not take any further action with the dispute.
[4]Document attached to original claim.

The Respondent’s Case

Mr Gronow is a Director of ISS. He had not filed a response and did not provide any exhibits as evidence to the tribunal. He gave sworn evidence and stated that his installer had installed the panels at the property and placed the panels at a location identified by the owners. He said that placement checks are done with the owner prior to installation. He said that the Installers told him that the panels were not placed on the Northern side of the property due to the owner not wanting the panels to be seen from the street. He said the panels were meant to be installed facing north so as to maximise sun and performance. He said the panels were installed by Qelec.
Mr Gronow said that the installer told him that the panels were installed at the correct angle and position and that they were operating efficiently. He said that the panels were slightly underperforming due to the location of the panels on the shadier side of the roof. He said that the contractors usually get the owners to sign off on the placement of panels but he was not sure if they had been signed. He said his contractors were working in Tasmania and were not available to give any evidence in the case. Mr Gronow said he had just returned from overseas and had not had time to properly prepare his case; he did not request an adjournment despite the matter being raised with him.
Mr Gronow claimed that he believed Qelec and been back to the property and that the system was performing as it should for the location. He said that if the panels were moved to the sunnier side of the roof the performance would increase by about ten percent.
Mr Gronow said that at no time would he ever provide any guarantee to a customer as to energy output. He said that Mr Quattrocchi was wrong in his allegations that he had been promised a greater performance and output. He said that he could not guarantee energy produced by the system and that he did not promise to Mr Quattrocchi that he would never receive another power bill in the future. Mr Gronow said he could not say that because it ‘depended on each individuals energy use… each household is different’.
Mr Gronow stated that the specification sheet gave clients an indication of the energy output and that the system he installed was working pursuant to the estimates and figures in the quotation.
Mr Gronow’s sworn evidence was of little use to the tribunal as most of his evidence was based on hearsay. He was not the Sales Rep who dealt with Mr and Mrs Quattrocchi and he was not the installer of the solar panels. His evidence was not supported by any exhibit or other evidence to corroborate what he was alleging.
Mr Gronow said that any reference in the quotations and specification sheet as to the expected output by the system was being met.
Mr Gronow said he was prepared to go back to Mr Quattrocchi’s property to move the panels, which would increase the performance of the panels, subject to Mr Quattrocchi paying for the further installation costs.

Summary of Experts Evidence

Mr Jason Reid of Prestige Power claims that the installation met the requisite Australian Standards. While he noted that there were many ‘energy efficient appliances the only recommendation he would make was for the Supply Authority meter to be calibrated and the direction of the solar panels on the roof be confirmed as correct’.
Qelec notes from “Peter” suggest that the systems ‘daily performance is estimated at approximately 20 kw per day’. The actual system was calculated at currently ‘performing at 12 kw per day’ and he suggests the ‘Need to remove trees for shading and an estimated increase daily saving of $3.46’.
Mr Campbell Medcalf from Planet Care Solar believes that ‘the panels are working efficiently and adequately for their current location’. Their report states that the ‘grid voltage is too high….this is a serious issue and I have notified Energex to conduct an investigation’.
Mr Joel Knibbs from Jasmin Solar claims that ‘on average a 5.5kw solar system will produce 22kw of power each day, some days more and some may be less’. He claims that ‘a 5.5kw system would never produce anywhere from 35kw per day up to 42kw as informed by the sales agent…for a system to produce a minimum value of 35kw …you would need a 8.75kw system…..and obtain permission from the network service provider(energex)’.
GST electrical and GC Solar provided some evidence about ways to increased performance including removal of trees and moving and tilting the solar panels. Both companies also provided quotations for the removal of the panels and remounting and repositioning to face a Northerly direction. Those quotes are for $8,440.00 plus GST and $2,839.00 including GST respectively. GC Solar indicate that by ‘removing 4 trees and titling the panels to face north will result in at least a 20% increase in performance’.

FINDINGS
Was there a term of the contract providing a guaranteed energy output?

The letter with the quotation including marketing material from ISS clearly suggests that there would be an expectation that a 5Kw system may eliminate current energy bills and allow for future increases in power costs and a possible payment for any excess energy not consumed. I find that the marketing material was generic and seems to suggest many possibilities but promises little. The marketing material cannot be relied upon as an agreement or commitment from ISS to Mr Quattrocchi as clearly the material does not take into account individual energy use, past power usage and what each household might require.
The quotation provides for a 5kw system with inverter and 20 panels, it is not disputed that the system pursuant to the quotation has not been provided and installed.
In this case Mr Quattrocchi is claiming a refund for a sum he paid to have the solar panel system installed due to it no performance according to what he was promised and according to his expectations. He claims he was misled and told that he would never have another power bill and that he might get a credit for excess energy.
I understand Mr Quattrocchi’s disappointment and frustration arising from his expectations that the system would produce between 35kw and 42kw of power per day and that he believed he would not have any more power bills. I find it a reasonable expectation that he feels he has been misled. I find on the evidence that there was no agreement between the parties that bound ISS to provide a solar panel system that would produce a particular amount of energy on a daily basis.
I find that the evidence before me does not support Mr Quattrocchi’s contention that there was a quotation, agreement, and contract or otherwise that the system he was purchasing would achieve at the level he claims he expected. He might have been told higher output levels by the Sales Rep, she might have been discussing higher output levels when referring to the larger 6Kw system, Mr Quattrocchi might have misunderstood what was told to him, but the evidence does not prove he was promised or that he contracted with ISS to purchase a system that would operate at the level he expected. In the absence of any evidence from the Sales Rep I cannot make any findings on what was discussed between these parties.

Are the solar panels defective or faulty?

The evidence suggest that the system that Mr Quattrocchi purchased has been installed in a professional and tradesman like manner and that it is operating at the expected rate for the size of the system in the location it has been placed. The evidence does support Mr Quattrocchi’s contention that he was not home when the contractors installed the system and he and his wife were at work. Mr Gronow said the solar panes were installed on the western side of the roof which explains for the slightly lower than anticipated output. Mr Gronow said the panels were installed on the slightly shadier side of the roof at the insistence of the home owner. He said that the contractors would have advised the home owners about where the best place was to put the panels and that if the advice given was not accepted and a home owner insisted to place the panels on a location that was not preferred, the contractors would have insisted that the home owner sign a waiver or indemnity. Mr Gronow could not produce any waiver or indemnity signed my Mr Quattrocchi.

Is the solar panel system operating at its maximum capacity?

I accept the evidence of Mr Quattrocchi and find that he was not home when the panels were installed. I also find that his wife was not present and that the panels were installed at the discretion of the installers. In an email exchange between the parties the next day after the panels were installed ISS sent and email to Mr and Mrs Quattrocchi on 16 January 2013. The email refers to the “STC forms” and requests them to ‘sign the STC form attached below and send it back to me as soon as you can’. The email then states ‘The installer has advised you were not present at the time of completion of your installation’. I find that the placement of the panels may have been influenced by Mr Quattrocchi’s request that if at all possible the panels not be seen from the road but he stated that if the panels were required to be placed on the side of the roof that faced the road so as to maximise performance he was content for that. I find that the panels were located and installed at the discretion of the contractor and the underperformance of the panels has been caused by ISS and that they are liable for the repositioning of them. I reject Mr Gronow’s evidence that his contractors installed the panels at the direction of the home owner and I find that the contactors did not complete a panel placement check with the owners prior to installation. Mr Gronow could not produce the “panel sign off” he said the owners should have signed, I do not believe in this case that it was in fact completed.
I find that Mr Quattrocchi provided quotations for the costs for the panels to be repositioned. I find that the solar panels expert evidence suggests an increase in performance if the panels are moved and tilted and likely to increase output by between 10-20%. The quotations for the repositioning from GS Electrical, Jasmin Solar and GC Solar ranged from between $2,839.00 and $8,440.00. The quotations all provided for the relocation of the solar panels onto tilt framing and to face north. The quotation of $2,839.00 includes GST and provides for a full installation and appears the most reasonable cost and provides an expected 20% increase in performance. I find that this sum should be paid by ISS to Mr Quattrocchi to provide for the repositioning of the panels to achieve maximum performance of the system.

Have ISS engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct?

The reasons I find that Mr Quattrocchi’s claim for a full reimbursement has no merit is due to the fact that he purchased a system that was quoted to him; I find it has been installed and is functioning at the near maximum output for the capacity of the system. I cannot make any findings of fact as to what the Sales Rep might have told him or promised him and on the evidence from ISS I cannot find that Mr Quattrocchi was misled or that ISS engaged in misleading conduct. I find it would be prudent on any person considering purchasing Solar Panels and installing such a system that they would do their necessary homework and study up on the various systems, their costs and predicted performance. Had Mr Quattrocchi done his research prior to accepting the quotation he would have discovered that a 5Kw system would never produce the output of 35-42Kw per day that he said he was “told and promised”.
For the reasons outlined I will make the following order.

ORDERS

THAT the Respondent pays to the Applicant the sum of $3,123.60 within fourteen days.