The respondent’s written and oral submissions concerned only the issue of whether Mr Mitchell is a consumer and did not traverse the further issues of whether if so, he is affected by a contravention for the purposes of item 1 or 2 of Table 172. The submissions simply asserted that he could not be because he is not a consumer. I note that a copy of the model standing offer for basic connection services effective from 1 July 2016 was attached to the respondent’s written submissions. Clause 4 and attachment 2 deal with the timeframes for commencement and completion of the connection service work. The timeframe for basic connection work for 1 to 4 connections is 20 business days of “Within you notifying us of your acceptance of our connection offer”. Clause 4 has a number of conditions and qualifications. Because the hearing was restricted to a narrow issue of jurisdiction, I cannot decide now whether or how Clause 4 is relevant to Mr Mitchell’s complaint. Nor can I decide whether there is a relevant industry code that has been contravened or whether the circumstances of this matter can constitute a failure to provide a utility service that was likely to cause substantial hardship to Mr Mitchell for the purposes of item 3 of Table 172. I cannot decide whether any and if so what order should be made under section 178 (ACAT decisions) or section 181 (Payment for loss or damage) of the Utilities Act. The respondent’s representative reminded me during the course of the hearing that I could not stray into consideration of these issues. To ensure procedural fairness the application will need to be re-listed for the hearing of submissions and where relevant, the taking of evidence about the issues. It is not appropriate for that to be done in a piecemeal fashion. The parties should prepare on the basis that all issues may need to be addressed in order to conclude the consideration of Mr Mitchell’s complaint. The application is referred back to the registry to arrange a further listing. ……………………………….. President L Crebbin
The respondent’s written and oral submissions concerned only the issue of whether Mr Mitchell is a consumer and did not traverse the further issues of whether if so, he is affected by a contravention for the purposes of item 1 or 2 of Table 172. The submissions simply asserted that he could not be because he is not a consumer. I note that a copy of the model standing offer for basic connection services effective from 1 July 2016 was attached to the respondent’s written submissions. Clause 4 and attachment 2 deal with the timeframes for commencement and completion of the connection service work. The timeframe for basic connection work for 1 to 4 connections is “Within 20 business days of you notifying us of your acceptance of our connection offer”. Clause 4 has a number of conditions and qualifications. Because the hearing was restricted to a narrow issue of jurisdiction, I cannot decide now whether or how Clause 4 is relevant to Mr Mitchell’s complaint. Nor can I decide whether there is a relevant industry code that has been contravened or whether the circumstances of this matter can constitute a failure to provide a utility service that was likely to cause substantial hardship to Mr Mitchell for the purposes of item 3 of Table 172. I cannot decide whether any and if so what order should be made under section 178 (ACAT decisions) or section 181 (Payment for loss or damage) of the Utilities Act. The respondent’s representative reminded me during the course of the hearing that I could not stray into consideration of these issues. To ensure procedural fairness the application will need to be re-listed for the hearing of submissions and where relevant, the taking of evidence about the issues. It is not appropriate for that to be done in a piecemeal fashion. The parties should prepare on the basis that all issues may need to be addressed in order to conclude the consideration of Mr Mitchell’s complaint. The application is referred back to the registry to arrange a further listing. ……………………………….. President L Crebbin
MITCHELL-v-ICON-DISTRIBUTION-INVESTMENTS-LTD-ABN-83073025224-AND-JEMENA-NETWORKS-ACT-PTY-LTD-ABN-24-008-552-663-TRADING-AS-ACTEWAGL-DISTRIBUTION-ABN-76670568688-Energy-And-Water-2016-ACAT-157.docx