I am a British Pensioner and lives in Adelaide South Australia for the last 4 years. On the first of February 2018 electricity was turned off to my residence by S A Power Network. A note was stuck into my front door to state that this was at the advice of my Electicity Retailer. I had until that time received no previous communication either from my energy retailer or from S A Power Network.
My electricity retailer was Simply Energy with whom I had a contract for the supply of Electricity and Gas for two year period beginning from the 12th September 2016. I therefore contacted Simply Energy my retailer who informed me that my account had been transferred to AGL. (A company that I had never heard of before that date). Simply Energy were unable to give me any explanation as to how or why the account was transferred to AGL when I had a legally binding contract with them. They were also unable to reconnect me for more than 36 hours. I had to rely on AGL to finally issue instructions to SA Power Network to reconnect me.
The hardship caused by the wrongful disconnection of my electricity power was significant, this was especially so because my wife was hard of hearing and relied on the land line for all her communications.
I decided to sue all three companies i.e S A Power Network, Simply Energy and AGL. On the 3rd February 2018 I issued a notice to all three companies of my intention to sue. They were given three weeks to respond.
1.The case against S A Power Network was that they failed in their duty of care by
The Compensation that I was seeking from them was not just for the financial loss but also for the stress and inconvenience caused. Most importantly I was seeking punitive damages so that this does not happen to another customer again.
The Response:
S A Power: Explained that AGL had requested to become a responsible retailer on the 24th October 2017 and had requested disconnection of power on the 29th January 2018. They offered an apology and a goodwill compensation. I accepted this because I felt that the case against them was the weakest. I felt however that they should have
1. verified with AGL whether they had been authorised to become the supplier of the property by the resident of that property and
2. When AGL requested S A Power Network to turn off the power supply to my property on the 29th January 2018 for unauthorised usage they should have determined whether AGL had gone through the due process under the law.
Simply Energy: Blamed every one else for the problem and completely ignored the issue of breach of Contract.
My electricity retailer was Simply Energy with whom I had a contract for the supply of Electricity and Gas for two year period beginning from the 12th September 2016. I therefore contacted Simply Energy my retailer who informed me that my account had been transferred to AGL. (A company that I had never heard of before that date). Simply Energy were unable to give me any explanation as to how or why the account was transferred to AGL when I had a legally binding contract with them. They were also unable to reconnect me for more than 36 hours. I had to rely on AGL to finally issue instructions to SA Power Network to reconnect me.
The hardship caused by the wrongful disconnection of my electricity power was significant, this was especially so because my wife was hard of hearing and relied on the land line for all her communications.
I decided to sue all three companies i.e S A Power Network, Simply Energy and AGL. On the 3rd February 2018 I issued a notice to all three companies of my intention to sue. They were given three weeks to respond.
1.The case against S A Power Network was that they failed in their duty of care by
- Not verifying that AGL was my supplier.
- Not verifying that AGL had a contract with me.
- Not verifying whether AGL had tried to contact me.
- Not verifying that AGL had any contact information about me.
- Not attempting to contact me the occupant of the house before turning the power off.
- And by not verifying whether the occupant of the house had any age or medical condition.
2 . The Case against Simply Energy was that they were in breach of a legally binding contract and their failure to inform me that my account was taken over by AGL. The contract required that they informed me of any change.
3. The Case against AGL was that:
1. They did not have the authority be the supplier of
the property and they did not have a contract with me, the resident.
2. They did not inform the me that they had
become my supplier
3. They had not issued any invoices to me and none were sent to the address of my property.
4. They failed to comply with the requirements of the law to issue the
resident with at least two written notices - and a reminder and a disconnection warning. The
disconnection warning notice to be issued at least 6 business days after the
reminder notice.
5. The disconnection warning notice should
state the reasons for disconnection, the date when the warning period ends and the payment made during the warning period.
The Response:
S A Power: Explained that AGL had requested to become a responsible retailer on the 24th October 2017 and had requested disconnection of power on the 29th January 2018. They offered an apology and a goodwill compensation. I accepted this because I felt that the case against them was the weakest. I felt however that they should have
1. verified with AGL whether they had been authorised to become the supplier of the property by the resident of that property and
2. When AGL requested S A Power Network to turn off the power supply to my property on the 29th January 2018 for unauthorised usage they should have determined whether AGL had gone through the due process under the law.
Simply Energy: Blamed every one else for the problem and completely ignored the issue of breach of Contract.
AGL: Thought they could get away with an offer of $300/ compensation.
Legal Matters
On expiry of the 21 day notice I decided to file a Minor Civil Action Claim against both AGL and Simply Energy at the Port Adelaide Magistrate Court. The duty clerk at the court suggested that I take legal advise because the claim was not that straight forward. I saw a lawyer at the legal aid office at Port Adelaide on the 1st March 2018. Altough she was sympathetic and understood my anger and frustration she was unable to help because they did not have the expertise to determine the quantum of damage. She suggested I contact the Law Society and obtain the names of Solicitors who could help me.
The Law Society gave me the name of three firms. The first firm stated that they did not do that kind of work. The second firm Stokes Legal asked me whether I was prepared to spend $ 1500/ to $2000. and then stated that the benefits I got from the case would not be worthwhile. It was a pity because they did not even heard the merits of the case. Having had previous experience of taking Solicitors to court for not paying my fee I decided to take up the case without Legal help.
The Law Society gave me the name of three firms. The first firm stated that they did not do that kind of work. The second firm Stokes Legal asked me whether I was prepared to spend $ 1500/ to $2000. and then stated that the benefits I got from the case would not be worthwhile. It was a pity because they did not even heard the merits of the case. Having had previous experience of taking Solicitors to court for not paying my fee I decided to take up the case without Legal help.
Determination of Quantum
I used the following calculation to determine the quantum of damage.
- Calculated the loss of food in the freezer.
- Cost of phone calls this can be obtained from the service provider.
- Cost of postage and other expenses.
- The time spent on
- Phone Calls
- Correspondences with the various electricity companies and regulators. Keep an accurate record of the time spent.
- Cost in time for preparing the case for court. The quantum was determined by multiplying the hours spent by the Australian Mimimum wage.
- Physical and mental stress cause. The quantum was more difficult to calculate for this and may require Medical reports. An arbitrary figure was put but subsequently withdrawn during negotiation.
- Punitive or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant or others from engaging in similar conduct. Punitive damages are calculated between 1 to 5 times the financial loss. I claimed 3 times my financial loss.
The Case
I I filed a case against both companies at the Port Adelaide Magistrate Court. Against AGL it was for both financial loss and exemplary damage and against Simply Energy it was exemplary damage for breach of contract.
The case against AGL came up for mediation At mediation I settled for $2000.00 damages a lot more than the initial offer of $300.00 but a lot less than my initial claim. I was a bit disappointed with the mediator because he was pushing for a settlement. He even suggested that I drop the case against Simply Energy because I have been compensated by AGL. I felt strongly that Simply Energy had breached a contract and therefore pay compensation. I pursued with the case and settled for $1000.00 in compensation.
Principle.
This case establishes the principle of exemplary damages. Although in this case it might not have been punitive enough for a big company, the case demonstrates that the Australian system does allow for individuals to take up their cases even without Legal help.
I
I
i
I
Comments
Post a Comment