$4008 bill from Origin Energy sparked fightback by ‘The Occupier’ to kill the ‘back-bill’

A BIG power company wrongly pursued Rick Lacina for thousands of dollars. But he’s had the last laugh — not only has he outflanked Origin Energy, he has helped to trigger a move to kill the “back-bill”.

Supplied Editorial PD Dodgy power bill IMAGES

A BIG power company wrongly pursued Rick Lacina for thousands of dollars. But he’s had the last laugh — not only has he outflanked Origin Energy, he has helped to trigger a move to kill the “back-bill”.

Mr Lacina has lived in his Wyoming home for 32 years and has been an Origin customer since 2009.

But in early September this year he received a letter from Origin addressed to “The Occupier”. He disregarded it, believing it was a mistake.

LEAVE YOUR QUESTIONS NOW FOR THE LIVE BRYDENS BLOG FROM 1PM

He got another in late September, advising to set up an account or electricity may no longer be supplied. He rang Origin and was told he was no longer a customer and that a new occupier was at his address. Then, in October, he received a “final bill”.

For $4008.

He told Public Defender that Origin explained this was to do with him being undercharged since early 2012. All his usage was at off-peak rates of just 10c per kilowatt hour. Much of it should have been at more than double that price.

In NSW, power companies can only seek to recoup nine months of undercharging. Before July last year, the limit was 12 months. But Victoria is looking at six months.

After Mr Lacina made that call to Origin it help line, it began a “bill review” — meant to take a few days. But it wasn’t until Mr Lacina turned to Public Defender and the Energy and Water Ombudsman nearly four weeks later that anything happened.

“I thought it was morally wrong after three years to ask me to pay off the whole lot at once,” Mr Lacina told me.

Due to EWON’s intervention his back-bill has been slashed to about $1000 for nine months of undercharging. Origin has apologised to Mr Lacina.

Minister for Resources and Energy Anthony Roberts has committed to taking action over the “back-bill” issue.

The number of complaints to EWON about back-billing rose 89 per cent last financial year to 1916 and are up 184 per cent on two years ago.

One wonders how many people in Mr Lacina’s situation know to turn to EWON. New ombudsman Janine Young said there had been a decline since the start of 2014-15.

Public Defender brought Mr Lacina’s treatment — and Victoria’s move — to the attention of NSW Energy Minister Anthony Roberts, who was previously Fair Trading Minister.

As a result Mr Roberts will propose a further reduction in the back-bill time frame at next month’s meeting of the federal, state and territory energy ministers in Adelaide.

“I will be examining the six-month proposal and will raise it with my ministerial colleagues,” Mr Roberts said.

Consumer group Choice says the limit should be just three months.

“The fewer months customers are allowed to be back-billed, the better,” said Choice spokesman Tom Godfrey.

@publicdefender

IMIS backer says website ‘misleading’

THE only provider to recognise the Infant Massage Information Service’s credentials has asked IMIS to modify its endorsement.

Last week Public Defender revealed IMIS — the largest provider of baby massage training in Australia — is under investigation by NSW Fair Trading amid allegations that include that it manufactured one of its own endorsements.

Australian Association of Massage Therapists CEO Tricia Hughes said the association had raised concerns that the website was partially misleading because not all IMIS “course content is recognised by AAMT”.

IMIS founder Heidi McLoughlin said she had no knowledge of it having been raised.

“But of course we have no issue in complying with any AAMT request.”

PLEASE HELP with BRYDENS LAWYERS

Signing over dad’s money

Chris asks: My father passed away last year and recently I got a letter from his super company asking me to sign so his money will go to his (other) sons. I’m not sure why I would have to sign if he left it to his other sons. We don’t have the same mother but same dad. Do I have the right to object?

Brydens: The allocation of a death benefit under a superannuation policy depends on the governing rules of that fund and whether beneficiaries were nominated by the deceased. If a binding nomination is not in force at the date of death or if there is a non-binding nomination, the fund’s trustee has the discretion to determine who should receive the benefits.

Unless your late father made a binding nomination it is possible that you have a right to make an objection which will be considered by the trustee before finalising a decision.