Rafferty v ActewAGL Retail Pty Ltd (Energy &Water)

Rafferty v ActewAGL Retail Pty Ltd (Energy & Water) involved a customer complaint against a retail electricity provider for allegedly failing to meet an obligation to the customer. The customer claimed that their solar array had not generated any electricity for export to the grid for several billing periods, and that the electricity bills recorded that their solar panels did not generate any solar credits. Rafferty alleged that the utility had an obligation to separately advise them that their solar panels were not generating solar credits. The Customer Advocacy and Technical Review Tribunal was tasked with deciding whether the electricity retailer had contravened the Consumer Protection Code 2020 (ACT) by not separately advising Rafferty of their solar panel failure.

The Tribunal considered that the retailer had no obligation to inform Rafferty of a meter failure, as this would only arise if the failure was evident or should be evident to the meter reader. If there was an evident failure of the meter, the utility should inform the customer of this by a note left at the premises, or by a timely, specific written communication to the customer at their nominated address for service. In cases like this where the failure was not evident, and in fact was caused by a failure of the customer’s equipment on their side of the meter, it was neither reasonable nor practicable to place a notification obligation on the utility. The retailer was in a position to observe that the amount of a customer’s solar credit was nil in a particular billing period, and to communicate this to their customer. However, this communication would be a matter of customer service and preferred business practice, and not something that should be a regulatory requirement on the retailer. The Tribunal found that the bills given to Rafferty appeared to comply with regulatory requirements under the National Energy Retail Rules, and sufficiently clearly conveyed to Rafferty that no solar credits had been earned during the billing period. The Tribunal further found that there was no additional obligation placed on the respondent utility by the representations described in paragraph [19] above.

The Tribunal dismissed Rafferty’s complaint, finding that the retailer had not contravened the Consumer Protection Code 2020 (ACT). The Tribunal ordered that the application was dismissed.