- Voltage issue led to dispute over home charger installation
- Despite ruling, Aeon didn’t repair or remove the charger
- Utilities ADR lacks enforcement power over company decisions
Aeon informed you that the issue with your home’s electricity supply was “voltage fluctuation,” so you arranged for Energy North West to monitor it.
You contacted Utilities Alternative Dispute Resolution, a licenced ombudsman scheme that arbitrates disputes involving EV equipment, when this demonstrated that nothing was amiss.
The ADR adjudicator ruled that Aeon had twenty-eight days to repair or remove the charger. This did not occur, and you ultimately decided to sell your electric vehicle.
Aeon has informed me, however, that it is in opposition to ADR and the energy monitor. It contends that a voltage peak prompted the charger to engage in safety-related isolation.
Aeon did not challenge the ADR ruling on the grounds of an “internal oversight.” As no initial payment was required for the installation of the charger, no refund was owed; however, Aeon extended a charitable gesture of £100.
Your stance was in opposition to Eon’s line of reasoning. You informed me that the charger was simply deceased and that Aeon staff recently encountered difficulty turning it on when they came to remove it.
However, the function of Alternative Dispute Resolution by Utilities swiftly emerged as pivotal to this entire dispute.
The statement continues, “Unless you accept our decision, consumers are not legally bound by our recommendations or decision; however, in the event that you do so, the organisation regarding which your complaint pertains will be bound by it.” Why, then, did Utilities ADR fail to implement the decision it rendered last November if this is the case?
Consumer Dispute Resolution Limited (CDRL) administers ADR programmes for utilities, an organisation authorised by the government and compensated by companies to manage grievances.
However, it proved difficult to inquire about its enforcement capabilities by contacting it.
It provided no correspondence address on its website. It prohibits all individuals from entering its Milton Keynes premises. Moreover, its website initially informed me that the phone system was not under surveillance “as a result of the ongoing Covid-19 challenges.
I considered myself fortunate when I noticed that the press was invited to access contact information via a link on CDRL’s website. I selected and received the error message “Oops!” “That page is not visible.” It attempted to direct me to the ‘ADR Officials’ link but failed to provide any names.
It is not surprising that Trustpilot reviews label CDRL as “Bad.”
Trading Standards assisted me in locating a CDRL email address, through which I communicated with CDRL director John Facenfield. He acknowledged that “we lack the authority to enforce the remedy or take punitive action” against any companies registering with CDRL, adding that consumers were responsible for independently pursuing legal action.
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
He further stated that the Utilities ADR website was not operating “properly.” Additionally, he provided me with a new email address; however, upon attempting to access it, I received an automated response stating, “This email address is not reserved for replies.”
Regarding an organisation that interacts with consumers, CDRL is the most hostile entity I have ever encountered. It is ineffective, and although it boasts that it can compel companies to pay up to £25,000 to complainants, it openly acknowledges that companies can disregard it.
CDRL informed me in its concluding statement that organisations that participate in its schemes, which include retailers, utilities, aviation, and communication, are “contractually obligated” to adhere to its rulings. Regrettably, it does not indicate its readiness to enforce the contracts above.
