Other Publicised Sources
Extracted from the Essential Services Ombudsman’s website.
W/2004/103
Unresolved high bill leads to debt collection action
When Ms D received a $232.60 water bill for the period 25 July 2003 to 27 October 2003, she contacted her water retailer to query it. The retailer told her an average family of four uses approximately 660 litres of water a day. In contrast, Mrs. D who lives alone had received a bill showing her average usage to be more in the line of 1,855 litres a day. The retailer said it would place a hold on the account and investigate the matter further. Ms D heard nothing more.
When she contacted the water retailer again closer to the due date of her next bill, Ms D was asked to check for water leakage — she did so and confirmed there was none. Then she discovered that her meter number did not match that on the bill. The retailer said it would send a field officer around to verify the meter number and the reading. Ms D vacated the premises in December 2003, without the matter being resolved.
In January 2004, she received a letter from a debt collection agency. She rang the water retailer and was told that, contrary to previous advice, no hold had been placed on the account, and further, that its field officer had been unable to gain access to her previous unit. She wasn’t aware of this. The retailer said it would contact the property’s managing agent to arrange for meter access and would withdraw the debt from the debt collection agency. Ms D contacted EWOV, concerned that this wouldn’t be done and worried about the potential effect on her credit rating.
As part of its investigation, EWOV asked the water retailer to arrange an on-site meter inspection. It was discovered that, in the billing process, the meters for Units 7 and 8 had been transposed. The retailer amended its records accordingly, credited the full amount outstanding and apologised for the inconvenience caused to Ms D. It also confirmed it had withdrawn all debt collection activity in relation to the matter and that Ms D’s credit rating had not been affected by the incident.
Providers have a responsibility to keep customers informed about the progress of their cases, as well as to ensure that agreed actions are undertaken.