Claim re power-surge damages

This is a drawn-out pending case worth sharing. Many letters were exchanged between Mr K.J. Whitham and Enemalta Corporation to no avail:

To Enemalta Corporation:

On Saturday, June 18, 2005, in Old Railway Road, Balzan, a surge of electricity occurred at approximately 7.45 a.m. and caused damage to items in several homes.

The surge caused damage to the following items in our home:

1) Grundig television; 2) digital cable box; 3) radio telephone; 4) microwave oven; 5) mobile phone charger and phone; 6) two bedside radio alarm clocks.

We assume a surveyor will be appointed to verify the damage caused.

Your earliest attention would be appreciated. (K.J. Whitham)

On having investigated the matter, Enemalta Corporation (EC) informed Mr Whitham that another consumer caused the power surge. Here is Enemalta's reply:

Re: Surge on June 18, 2005, Claim for Damages:

Please refer to previous correspondence regarding subject in caption.

We have investigated your claim and results revealed that cause of fault was due to third parties. In fact what happened was that our lines were bunched together and tied with a piece of wire.

This is what created the fault that resulted in this high voltage. Enemalta has already lodged a report at Birkirkara Police Station with PC 1078 on June 18, 2005, should you wish to obtain a copy.

We are really sorry but, in this case, Enemalta Corporation, under the terms of Article 14(2)(c) of the Enemalta Act, cannot accept liability for any damages.

We do hope the above information has been of some help. Should you wish any further details please do not hesitate to contact our senior engineer George Portelli on tel: 2298-0343. (Antoinette Zahra, Customer Care co-ordinator, July 27, 2005)

Ms. Zahra also sent Mr Whitham a copy of the Enemalta Act Article 14 (a)(b)(c):

With respect to the supply of electrical energy by Enemalta, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) Enemalta may reduce as it thinks fit the quantity of energy supplied to any consumer, if, by reason of any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the Corporation, it appears that the supply of electrical energy generated is insufficient to enable the full quantity to be conveniently supplied;

(b) where the quantity of energy supplied has been reduced as aforesaid no liability shall be incurred by Enemalta in respect of any loss or damage caused by such reduction;

(c) Enemalta shall not be liable for any damage to person or property or for any cessation of the supply of energy, which may be due to unavoidable accident, fair wear and tear or overloading due to unauthorised connection of apparatus, or to the reasonable requirements of the electrical system, or to the defects in any electrical installation not provided by the Corporation. (Antoinette Zahra, July 27, 2005)

In no uncertain terms I find Enemalta's one-sidedness extremely unfair, offensive, and highly disturbing. Quite rightly Mr Whitham was not going to be fobbed off easily and on August 5, 2005, he replied:

Re: Surge on June 18, 2005, Claim for damages.

I write with reference to your letter dated July 27, 2005, in connection with the above.

In your said letter you refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the damages which myself and neighbouring householders suffered through a surge which occurred in the area.

You alleged that a neighbouring householder has messed up with the electrical wire supply and this caused the surge. Your letter of even date refers. Myself and neighbours have suffered considerable damages.

The supplier is Enemalta, the surge came from Enemalta, I pay for services to Enemalta and it is absolutely the duty of Enemalta to seek redress for any damages caused to the Corporation itself and to its clients among whom there is myself.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Customer Service Column of The Sunday Times and I am sure that through their mediation, they can record 'On a positive note'. (K.J. Whitham)

More letters were exchanged between Mr Whitham and Enemalta to no avail and, despite Mr Whitham's highly valid argument and his perseverance, Enemalta did not budge. In no uncertain terms this is not fair.

Indeed, in accordance with the internationally recognised eight Consumer Rights, Mr Whitham has the right to redress.

He is buying a service from Enemalta and in this specific supplier/consumer transaction Enemalta is not being fair to expect Mr Whitham to seek redress from a third person. Let's face it, Mr Whitham is paying Enemalta for the service and, in this context, the transaction is between Enemalta and Mr Whitham.

Working in consumer affairs, among other things, I give talks to various audiences. A particular message I regularly deliver about obtaining satisfaction is: "You can only expect and insist on obtaining satisfaction from the trader to whom you gave the money, the company which you paid, or the counter where you placed your payment for the respective goods or service."

I conclude this article by stipulating that Mr Whitham is not being unreasonable by expecting satisfaction from Enemalta rather than from a fellow consumer. I dare say that he is entitled to obtain satisfaction from Enemalta and Enemalta ought to take action on the deal with Mr Whitham accordingly.

In no uncertain terms Enemalta ought to adopt the appropriate stance in its dealings with its customers. In accordance with logic, on having investigated Mr Whitham's justifiable claim, Enemalta is not being fair to him by expecting him to take legal action against another (third party) consumer.