Shaw v Icon Distribution Investments Ltd (ABN 83073025224) and Jemena Networks (ACT) Pty Ltd (ABN 24 008 552 663) Trading as ACTEWAGL Distribution (ABN 76670568688) and Ors (Energy and Water)

In the matter of Shaw v Icon Distribution Investments Ltd and Jemena Networks (ACT) Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr. Shaw, filed a complaint regarding discrepancies in his electricity meter readings and associated billing. The complaint was brought before the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The applicant sought redress for what he perceived to be improper billing practices by the respondents, which included Icon Distribution Investments Ltd, Jemena Networks (ACT) Pty Ltd trading as ACTEWAGL Distribution, and ACTEWAGL Retail. The dispute centred on whether the respondents contravened any customer contracts, industry codes, or laws in their metering and billing practices, and if so, what compensation was appropriate.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the respondents had breached any obligations under their contracts with the applicant, contravened any industry codes such as the Consumer Protection Code 2009 and 2012, or failed to comply with the National Energy Retail Rules and Metrology Procedure Part B March 2008. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant suffered loss or damage due to the respondents' actions and, if so, the appropriate level of compensation. The scope of the Tribunal's powers to make orders under the Utilities Act 2000 was also a matter of consideration.

The Tribunal found that the first respondent, ACTEWAGL Distribution, had contravened the Consumer Protection Code 2009 by not showing a meter reading for 30 October 2007 as an estimate in the bill issued on 11 February 2008. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered ACTEWAGL Retail to pay the applicant $215.41 as compensation. Regarding the second respondent, ACTEWAGL Distribution, the Tribunal ruled that a small amount of $0.20 should be paid for the use of electricity during a meter test which was agreed to be at no cost to the applicant. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for declarations, the power to conduct meter readings, and the referral of the matter as a systemic problem to the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission and relevant Ministers.

In summary, the Tribunal found that the respondents had contravened certain provisions related to meter readings and billing. Compensation was awarded to the applicant in the amount of $215.61, reflecting the Tribunal's determination of the appropriate redress for the contraventions identified.