Energy companies cannot issue energy billings without first convincingly proving that there was meter manipulation, irregular electricity or gas consumption and, later, making an objective calculation of the same. That is to say, the companies cannot simply accuse and collect. This is the opinion of a court in Terrassa, which has acquitted a family of paying close to 12,500 euros for electricity for an alleged manipulation of the meter. Endesa had issued them a re-invoicing over the period of time (just over three years) in which, supposedly, they had underpaid because the meter was tampered with. Following this court decision last February, the company, which sued the alleged offenders, will not only stop receiving said amount with the legal interest, but will also have to pay the costs of the trial.
The decision of the Court of First Instance 1 of Terrassa (the text of which can be consulted here) concludes that the evidence provided by Endesa, particularly the inspector’s report, is not sufficient to prove that the user tampered with the electricity meter. The magistrate, Jordi Álvarez, rejects the document because the inspector who signed it is a company worker and, therefore, biased. In his resolution, the judge reproached Endesa for not notifying the user of the discovery of the alleged trickery at the same time the review took place, so that the latter could have “witnessed his condition and preconstituted [antes de la apertura del proceso judicial] the proof”.
This resolution, they point out from the office Legalion Lawyers, which led the defense of the defendant, is of great relevance to all energy consumers. As Mario Rodriguez, the firm’s lawyer, explains, the ruling establishes clear limits to the practice of companies automatically rebilling for alleged meter trickery without notifying customers and without verifying the veracity of the accusations with an independent expert.
Twelve thousand five hundred euros more electricity
The case resolved by the Terrassa court dates back to December 2020. In the midst of the pandemic, Endesa carried out an inspection of the meter of the electrical installation of one of its clients in the Catalan city and, after noticing the manipulation of the meter, proceeded to carry out a re-invoicing of the amounts that had been charged from November 23, 2017 to March 3, 2021, for an amount of 12,469.87 euros.
The company relied on article 87 of a royal decree of the year 2000 that regulates the activities of electricity supply to calculate the sum that, supposedly, its client owed it. This precept allows distribution companies to interrupt supply immediately “when the measurement or control equipment is tampered with or its proper functioning is prevented.” The rule also establishes that, if there is no objective criterion for billing in this case, the applicable rule is to charge according to the contracted power for six hours of daily use for one year. Regardless of whether the company can subsequently go to court.
The defendant client opposed the payment of the 12,500 euros plus legal interest and denied the existence of tampering with the electricity meter. His defense attorney also rejected the validity of the inspection procedure and questioned the calculations made by Endesa to re-invoice energy consumption. He also claimed that the legal term of one year to issue the new amount since the review had expired.
Deficient test
The resolution of the case is based on the principle of law according to which the claimant must demonstrate the facts on which he bases his claims, included in article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law. Well, according to the magistrate of the Catalan court, Endesa did not sufficiently demonstrate the existence of an alteration in the electricity meter that caused losses to the company.
The magistrate argues that the report prepared and presented at trial by Endesa does not have “probative value” as it is signed by a worker from the company itself, although in the trial he claimed that it was not. The judge pulls the ears in the sentence to the company for not having communicated this inquiry to his client at the same time that the accountant was reviewed.
On the other hand, it rejects the calculation of the re-invoicing issued for not adapting to the aforementioned decree. The magistrate doubts that the data provided by the company (an undated consumption history) can make a minimally objective calculation of the client’s actual expenses. “It would have been desirable for the plaintiff to have provided comprehensive billing histories of the periods, dates, and actual consumption made by the defendant, as well as the consumption made subsequently, in order to verify the difference in consumption,” he argues. In any case, he admits, the rule of six hours a day of light provided for in the 2000 regulation should have been used.
Given the lack of sufficient evidence, both to prove the trickery of the meter and to calculate the new bills, the judge dismissed Endesa’s claim and acquitted the consumer of paying the required amounts. In addition, he orders the company to bear the costs of the entire procedure.
Five Days Agenda
The most important economic appointments of the day, with the keys and the context to understand their scope.
RECEIPT IN TU CORREO