DisputeA customer contacted the CRU as their supplier, without authorisation, debited a sum of over €2,220 from their bank account. The supplier alleged that the sum related to a legacy energy account the customer held with the supplier. The customer advised that it took 37 days of telephone calls before the supplier logged a formal complaint regarding the matter. The customer also advised that it took 116 days to have the €2,200 returned to their bank account.Throughout the complaint, the customer felt that their phone calls were ignored, and wanted to understand how a supplier could charge their bank account after 12-13 years. The customer noted that the account was closed, and sums cleared in 2008; therefore, they could not comprehend where the sum originated. The customer noted that their supplier had provided no practical explanation to date.The supplier had offered €310 in compensation for the customer service errors, but the customer was not happy with this sum considering the time taken to obtain a refund, alongside the stress caused by the complaint. The customer did not accept this compensation and escalated their complaint to the CRU.The supplier advised that they upheld the customer’s complaint and acknowledged that their contact agent had incorrectly reactivated a service agreement, resulting in a payment being processed. They acknowledged it was unacceptable that it took three months for the customer to obtain their refund and noted that their handling of the complaint was dissatisfactory. The supplier advised that they had apologised to the customer, explained how the bill was generated and payment was taken, and had offered the compensation of €310.OutcomeThe CRU upheld the customer’s complaint based on the following key points:<ul><li data-block-key="fp454">Failure to close the customers’ energy account correctly which led to the unauthorised debiting of their account.</li><li data-block-key="3vki7">Failure to explain the origins of the amount debited in error.</li><li data-block-key="651r7">Significant delay in issuing the refund – it took 88 days for the supplier to issue the refund from when the customer advised the supplier of the mistaken debit.</li><li data-block-key="cp54q">Customer service failures, including delays in the supplier logging the customer’s complaint.</li></ul>When the CRU contacted the supplier to confirm that the complaint had exhausted the suppliers’ full complaints process (a requirement before the CRU can investigate), the CRU was advised in error that the complaint was still under investigation.The CRU considered that €310 compensation provided by the supplier did not reflect the level of customer service errors and service provided. For its many customer service failures, the CRU directed the supplier to award the customer compensation of €600. The Customer Care Team also brought the issues as outlined in this customer’s complaint to the attention of the CRU’s Compliance and Enforcement team.

Poor customer service relating to legacy energy account

DisputeThe customer contacted the CRU advising they had received a large catch-up bill of €4,000 due to that their supplier and ESB Networks (ESBN) being negligent in the management of their electricity account. The customer had signed up with their supplier in 2017, but due to access issues, no actual meter readings were obtained throughout 2016 and 2017.During 2017, the customer had submitted meter readings, but had incorrectly submitted four-digit readings instead of five-digit readings. ESBN’s meter reader obtained an actual meter reading at the property in March 2018. However, this meter reading was rejected by ESBN as the five-digit meter read obtained by the meter reader was not in line or did not correlate with four-digit readings submitted by the customer.The issue with the incorrect four-digit meter readings was only rectified in May 2019 when another ESBN meter reader obtained a five-digit actual meter reading, and the error was logged and resolved. The correct meter reading obtained in May 2019 resulted in the customer receiving the large catch-up bill of €4,000.The customer highlighted that the catch up was due to ESBN’s failure to use their meter reader’s actual meter reading taken in March 2018. ESBN recognised their error in rejecting their own meter reader’s reading, and offered the customer €400 compensation. The customer considered that the bill should be written off in its entirety.OutcomeThe CRU investigated and upheld the complaint against ESBN, but deemed that the offer made by ESBN was fair and reasonable for their error and did not direct ESBN to award additional compensation.Throughout 2017, the customer would have benefitted from very low bills due to submitting incorrect four-digit customer readings. The electricity had been used by the customer and the balance was due and owing. To assist the customer in repaying their debt the CRU directed the customer’s supplier to place the customer on a four-year repayment plan.

Incorrect meter reading with large catch up bill

DisputeThe customer contacted the CRU noting that they had been charged on a small business tariff for a domestic house for the past 20 years. The customer had applied to change the classification of the premises to domestic and wanted this classification change to be backdated. They also sought a refund for the difference in costs between domestic and business rates from their electricity supplier for the period the premises was classified incorrectly. The energy supplier in question did not uphold the customer’s complaint and referred the customer to the CRU.OutcomeThe CRU investigated this case and did not uphold the customer’s complaint.In the case of classification of a premises, when a new connection agreement is signed it is the responsibility of the customer signing up to that agreement (which may be done by an electrician or builder on the customer’s behalf) to ensure the premises is correctly registered as domestic or non-domestic. If there is subsequently a change to the classification – for example, if a new customer moves into a premises previously registered as non-domestic and will now be using it for domestic purposes – the customer must inform ESB Networks (ESBN), either directly or via their electricity supplier, so that the classification can be updated.The customer, who had been with their supplier since 2004, had always had a DG5 classification, which indicated that the original connection agreement with ESBN was for a non-domestic supply. Furthermore, it would have been noted on each of the customer’s bills that their property was being billed under a business classification (DG5 customer classification).The CRU checked records with both the electricity supplier and ESBN. The customer had failed to raise this issue with either their supplier or ESBN before January 2022. The CRU also contacted ESBN requesting sight of the original connection agreement; however, due to the length of time that has passed, the original connection agreement was not available. The CRU did not receive any documentation to confirm the original classification of the house, either from the customer or ESBN.Over the years, the electricity bills the customer received indicated that they were billed on a ‘small business variable electricity’ tariff. It was unfortunate that the customer did not examine their bills previously and query this with their supplier. Had the customer noticed their business customer classification previously they could have had the classification changed to domestic and the issue rectified at an earlier stage.

Domestic customer incorrectly classified as a business customer

DisputeThe customer opened a gas account with a supplier and signed up to a level pay/budget plan where the customer’s monthly payment amount was set at €45 per month. The customer noted a rising balance of arrears on his monthly bills and contacted the supplier on many occasions to query the rising balance. The customer was continually advised by the supplier that his payments of €45 per month would cancel out the arrears over the course of the year.A few months later, the supplier increased the customer’s monthly payments from €45 to €65 per month; however, this increase had little effect on covering the rising arrears on the customer’s account. The customer lodged an official complaint with the gas supplier; however, his calls were rarely returned, and no attempt was made by the supplier in question to resolve the matter until the complaint was escalated by the customer to the CRU.OutcomeThe CRU investigated and upheld the customer’s complaint in relation to the many customer service issues the customer had encountered in attempting to get his complaint resolved. The monthly budget plan payment as determined by the supplier was at no time sufficient to cover the customer’s actual gas usage and led to arrears accumulating on the customer’s account. The total debt accumulated by the customer at the end of his contract period was €700.A budget plan is designed to even out customer payments throughout the year. However, in order for budget plans to work correctly, the plan needs to be managed by the supplier to take account of a customer’s actual usage; suppliers in turn need to apply appropriate increments to monthly sums if it is noted that the monthly payments are not enough to cover usage. In this case, the supplier should have conducted a full audit on the budget plan where arrears continued to accumulate.The CRU directed the supplier to award the customer €330 in charter payments for its many customer service failings and for failing to manage the budget plan effectively. The supplier also agreed as a goodwill gesture to write off the balance of €360 owing on the customer’s account.

Level pay/budget plan

DisputeA customer contacted the CRU in relation to a large catch-up bill they had received for gas usage, which equated to around €11,500 (inc. VAT). The customer noted that they had been billed based on estimated meter reads since April 2020. No actual meter readings had been obtained by Gas Networks Ireland (GNI) during this time, and the customer advised that they had received no notification by GNI regarding any attempts made to obtain a meter reading. GNI took an actual meter reading in 2022, which generated a large catch-up bill for usage between 2020 and 2022.The customer advised that they renewed their contract with their supplier both in 2021 and in 2022, and the issue of a lack of meter readings was never raised or discussed. The customer felt it unfair that their supplier billed them for this large catch-up bill based on current rates rather than historical rates. This meant that all the units were billed using the highest rate, which did not reflect the price at the various time periods over the two years in which the energy had been used.The supplier did not uphold the customer’s complaint and advised the CRU that the customer had been billed in line with standard industry procedure, which is to charge the customer for usage as per the meter readings obtained by GNI, and to apply the rates applicable at that point in time. The supplier also noted that this process was in line with the T&amp;Cs of the gas supply contract that the customer had accepted upon sign up.OutcomeThe CRU did not uphold the customer’s complaint as the supplier billed the customer in line with industry practice. However although the supplier billed the customer correctly, the CRU, in consideration of the current energy crisis, requested the supplier review billing from 2020 to 2022, apportion/pro-rate the energy usage (units) over bi-monthly billing periods, and apply the prices that applied at these various billing periods.The CRU took into consideration that the period of 2020 to 2022 was not business as usual due to Covid, meaning GNI meter readings could not take place where meters were located internally. The supplier agreed to pro-rate the bill as a goodwill gesture.Having calculated the unit rate and standing charges on a pro-rata basis since the opening read in 2020, the supplier reduced the bill to around €5,300. The supplier also noted that they were happy to provide a payment plan to help the customer with repayments.

Catch-up bill following series of estimated meter reads

DisputeA customer had a new gas meter installed as part of Gas Network Ireland’s (GNI’s) meter replacement programme. During installation, safety tests conducted by GNI identified four faults and a gas leak inside the customer’s property. The GNI technician, following due process, disconnected the gas supply.The customer was unhappy as it led to them having no gas for a period and having to purchase a new boiler to fix the leak. The customer contacted the CRU requesting that they have GNI amend their process to ensure that customers are notified in advance that the above scenario (disconnection due to safety issue) can occur when meters are exchanged. The customer also requested that GNI have a registered gas installer (RGI) at a customer’s property to carry out repairs before the gas supply is cut off.OutcomeThe CRU, following investigation, did not uphold the customer&#x27;s complaint as GNI disconnected the customer&#x27;s gas supply due to safety reasons. The CRU was satisfied that the customer was provided with sufficient information concerning the meter exchange and safety check and could have had an RGI present if they opted to. More generally, the CRU was satisfied that sufficient information is provided to customers before a meter exchange.In most cases no faults are identified in properties that maintain their gas installation or appliances. The CRU acknowledges the inconvenience caused to customers in such rare instances, however, gas safety is a priority. The CRU encourage customers to have their gas appliances maintained or serviced annually. A list of RGIs can be found at www.rgii.ie.

Customer service around gas supply disconnection

DisputeThis domestic customer’s complaint was about regular water outages at their home. The customer noted that they had not received a response from Uisce Éireann (UÉ) to their complaint and in an effort to obtain a response, cc’d the CRU in their email correspondence with UÉ.The customer noted that they received two missed calls from UÉ but was unable to answer the calls as they were at work at the time. They attempted to call the number back; however, it came back as an invalid number. In the days that followed, the customer received a letter from UÉ advising that their complaint had been closed. The customer was keen to discuss their complaint and called UÉ and was advised that someone from the complaints department would call them back. The customer did not receive a phone call, but instead received an email from UÉ stating that UÉ had no plans to upgrade water services in their area and the customer’s complaint was closed.The customer considered UÉ’s complaints process to be entirely unsatisfactory. They felt it unfair that they were denied the opportunity to speak to anyone about their complaint, and that UÉ had not conducted an on-site visit to assess the situation.OutcomeThe CRU reviewed all documentation in relation to this complaint. In terms of the water outage issue, UÉ advised that they had carried out planned leak detection and repairs in other areas of the town which had assisted customers’ pressure and flow and advised that there were no plans in the immediate term to upgrade the mains in the customer’s specific area.UÉ had put in place a temporary solution, but in relation to an enduring solution advised that the section of mains was under consideration for rehabilitation in 2023, subject to an Asset Needs Brief review. The CRU does not have authority to intervene in the day-to-day operations of UÉ in relation to when asset replacement or upgrades will be carried out.The CRU upheld the customer’s complaint against UÉ for the customer service issues and delays the customer had encountered. UÉ, in recognition of their poor customer service, had awarded the customer €120. The CRU directed UÉ to award the customer a further four charter payments (totalling €120) in relation to the poor handling of the customer’s complaint, for delays in responding to the complaint, providing incorrect billing information in the report to the CRU, and closing out the customer’s complaint without speaking to the customer.

Regular water outages and customer service issues and delays

DisputeThe customer noted that there had been a continuous sound of water gushing between the party walls of his house and that of his neighbour. They believed that the issue was caused by a mains water leak from a pipe belonging to Uisce Éireann (UÉ) and felt that they, as the national water services provider, should be held responsible for any property damage caused to either or both houses.The customer requested UÉ call to the properties and check the foundations of both houses, and if there was water damage found, to repair same. UÉ upon contact from the customer, requested the customer conduct a plumber’s report to confirm that the issue was not due to internal pipework in the property and therefore a private matter. The customer provided a plumber’s report to UÉ to confirm that there was no issue with the internal pipework.UÉ, in turn, attended the premises to conduct an assessment and found that the leak did not have anything to do with UÉ assets. After continued engagement with the customer over many months, UÉ conducted a full investigation which provided evidence that it was not an issue with UÉ mains pipe but an issue with a private pipe that required capping on a piece of derelict land.The conclusion, from UÉ’s investigation, was that the customer’s property was built on the site of an old factory that would have contained a private water network. A dig revealed an old water connection (most likely part of the old factory) that was still active and should not have been left in an active state. It should have been capped by the owner of the property and identified by the builder. A stop valve was installed by UÉ which resolved the issue with the water noise at the properties.UÉ acknowledged the delay in finding the leak both due to Covid-19 and due to UÉ’s mapping system only showing UÉ’s assets and not the private networks in the area. UÉ repaired the leak, despite it not resulting from an UÉ asset.OutcomeThe CRU did not uphold the customer’s complaint as there was no evidence that the leak was an UÉ asset but rather a private asset. UÉ is not obliged to maintain or conduct repairs of private assets.

Water leak from an old water connection

DisputeA business customer logged a complaint with the CRU around new charges which were applied (without agreement) to their electricity bill. The supplier had listed the charges as ‘additional market charges’ (AMCs) on their bill.The customer requested their supplier to remove the AMCs, refund the sum charged, honour the original contract (where AMCs had not been referenced) and charge the rates detailed within the contracted price plan.The customer felt that the supplier took a risk in not forwarding purchasing electricity and did not secure the prices as contractually agreed, and that they should not be penalised for their supplier’s failure to hedge.As part of the investigation, the CRU requested clarifications from the supplier in terms of how the ‘AMC’ was applied and calculated, how it related to a regulated pass-through charge (as indicated by the supplier), and how the application of this new charge was communicated to customers. The supplier advised that the application of the AMC was unavoidable and a temporary measure due to the unprecedented increases in global wholesale energy costs and advised that it had no option but to pass these charges on to its customers.The supplier maintained that they were entitled to apply the additional charge as per their terms and conditions of supply (T&amp;Cs); the supplier’s T&amp;Cs noted that they had the right to vary its charges to reflect any variation in any element of the costs to the supplier in providing the supply of energy to its customer.OutcomeThe CRU upheld the customer’s complaint due to several factors:<ul><li data-block-key="cgh7g">By attributing an unregulated price increase to the Single Electricity Market (SEM), the CRU considered the supplier had breached a requirement of the Electricity and Natural Gas Supplier Handbook.</li><li data-block-key="24es9">The CRU concluded that while the supplier’s T&amp;Cs provided for a price change, the way the AMC was applied to the customer’s account was incorrect and misleading. Transparency of charging or billing structures is vital for all customers to ensure they can budget and have a clear understanding of what charges will be applied to their energy accounts and when.</li><li data-block-key="8q7qq">The CRU deemed that the AMC notifications received were misleading, as it implied that the AMC was a pass-through cost. These notification letters inferred the price would not change when there was a significant change to the overall price and the customer’s bills.</li><li data-block-key="oqt5">The supplier did not provide 30 days’ notice prior to inclusion of the AMC on bills, which breached the supplier’s Code of Practice on Billing.</li><li data-block-key="bghhg">The customer’s T&amp;Cs were not amended to reflect the inclusion of an AMC. This was found to be a breach of Section 4.6.1 of the Handbook.</li><li data-block-key="8h2n4">The CRU was of the view that the introduction of the AMC was a significant change to the customer’s contract, and as such should have been published.</li></ul>Although the charge had been described in a misleading manner, the T&amp;Cs of the customer’s contract did give the supplier the option to increase prices during the contract period. The CRU directed the supplier to award 39 charter payments of €30 each, totalling €1,170.

Unclear billing and misleading information

DisputeThe business customer was unhappy that their electricity supplier had increased their unit rate in the middle of their contract term. The customer believed the rate they signed up to should be applied to their account for the duration of their agreement/contract term. The supplier maintained that the increase was due to increasing regulated costs/’pass through electricity costs’ and that the terms and conditions, which were provided to the customer upon sign up, clearly stated the right of the supplier to pass on such costs to the customer.Pass through costs are set by ESB Networks (ESBN), Eirgrid and the Single Electricity Market Operator (SEMO) and approved by the CRU. Such charges include those associated with use of the system (generation and network costs). Whilst international fuel prices are a key driver of electricity prices, some of the cost components in a business customer’s electricity price are directly regulated and suppliers are required to pay them.Changes to these regulated charges generally come into effect on 1st October annually. While it is the decision of each supplier whether or not to pass on such costs to final customers, most suppliers pass on all such costs. An increase in pass through costs does not however affect any discounts a customer may have.OutcomeThe CRU investigated and did not uphold the customer’s complaint. The supplier’s terms and conditions clearly outlined that pass-through charges are subject to change. When the pass-through charges increased, these charges were passed on to the customer by their supplier in accordance with the supplier’s terms and conditions agreed by the customer at sign-up.It is a customer’s responsibility to ensure that prior to entering into any business contract that they fully understand and agree to the terms and conditions associated with the contract.

Pass through costs complaint

DisputeA business customer discovered that their water meter was faulty, and that it was incorrectly recording water consumption leading to very high bills between 2015 and 2019 despite the customer noting very low water usage.At the request of the customer, an Uisce Éireann (UÉ, then Irish Water), engineer attended the business premises in April 2019 to investigate. The engineer confirmed that the meter was faulty and subsequently replaced the faulty meter.The customer disputed the high bills with UÉ, and raised a complaint, but they continued to receive bills for the period the faulty meter had been in operation. Low usage recorded on the new replacement meter provided further evidence that the previous meter had been faulty. The customer felt they should not have to pay for the usage recorded and engaged the services of a solicitor to obtain a resolution. Despite efforts by the customer’s solicitor to resolve the issue with UÉ, no resolution was obtained.In 2021, the customer referred their complaint to the CRU as queries or requests from the customer’s solicitor to UÉ were inadequate or unanswered.OutcomeThe CRU investigated and upheld the customer’s complaint against UÉ, as the customer had been charged for usage based on a faulty meter.While investigating, the CRU identified significant customer service failings, including a lack of response to various queries raised, failing to respond to solicitors’ letters, denying the meter was ever replaced, delays in responding to the customer and calls for an update on the complaint status were never provided.For these failings, the CRU directed UÉ to pay the customer compensation of €500. UÉ revised the billing for the period that the faulty meter was in operation, which led to a significant reduction in billing.

Faulty meter and customer service issues

DisputeThe business customer contacted the CRU in relation to a water services connection quotation received from Uisce Éireann (UÉ). The quotation was to provide water to a newly constructed extension to a nursing home.According to the customer, the quotation received from UÉ was over four times more expensive than quotations provided by independent contractors. The customer advised that the process of attempting to engage with UÉ on the matter had caused a two-year delay to the project, and further advised that he had been notified of the existence of a UÉ self-lay pilot project, where a developer could use an independent contractor to self-lay rather than UÉ carrying out the work.The customer believed the nursing home could qualify for the scheme, but UÉ had advised the customer that they did not meet the criteria for the self-lay pilot. The customer requested the CRU investigate these matters, particularly the connection agreement for the nursing home.OutcomeThe CRU did not uphold the complaint as UÉ provided a connection quotation for the nursing home in line with the CRU’s approved connection charging policy. The offer was made based on the rates of the approved contractors. The pricing was deemed to be a contractual matter between UÉ and its contractors.The CRU liaised with UÉ to understand if self-lay could be considered. UÉ advised the CRU that the self-lay project as proposed by the customer did not meet the certain specific requirements.The CRU, in an effort to assist the customer in obtaining an effective resolution, directed UÉ to arrange a meeting with the customer to a) discuss the existing offer and answer any questions the customer may have in relation to this connection offer; and b) consider if there were alternative options the customer could consider to lower the cost of the connection (including outlining anything the customer could do to meet the criteria for self-lay).While the CRU did not uphold the substance of this customer’s complaint, the CRU identified significant failings by UÉ in relation to its Code of Practice on Complaint Handling. There were also significant delays in communications by UÉ with the customer which negatively impacted on the timeline of the connection offer. The CRU directed UÉ pay the customer five charter payments of €30 each for these failings.

Connection application and quotation received

Make a Complaint

Case studies provide a useful tool in highlighting areas of recurring customer concern, complaint trends, or new and emerging customer issues across energy, gas and water.

Consumer Case Studies

Domestic

Electricity

Gas

Water

Business

Electricity

Water

Complain to your energy provider, Uisce Éireann, or the CRU