The climate change debate continues.

[facthunter]

CHANGING Climate is different to Pollution but both are a challenge to  our continued existence here. Nev

[nomadpete]

Anthropogenic climate change is caused by humans polluting the atmosphere.

 

Unfortunately it has become a convenient smokescreen behind which we collectively hide all the other damaging human caused pollutions.

 

Using the word 'pollution' (to describe a cause of global warming) is a small step toward acknowledging that we are doing damage to more systems than the climate, with more kinds of pollutant than CO2.

[facthunter]

Glyphosate, Lead and Plastic to name 3,  Nev 

[old man emu]

Tik-Tok, Facebook and Twitter to name three more.

[facthunter]

SKY and 2GB  Nev (Ignore the gremlins).

Quote

 

 

[red750]

You'd better sit down to read this. The eyewatering bill these people received will knock your socks off. This was sent to me by my ex-Shed-on-line mate, username bunyip, who regularly sends me stuff from the SMH.

 

Sue Williams, SMH, 1 May ’25.

 

Angry apartment owners say they’re being charged for electricity generated by solar panels on their own roof thanks to a confidential agreement signed between their developer and the energy provider. 

 

When they moved into the new building in Sutherland, in Sydney’s south, they assumed the solar would help with their common property electricity bills.

 

Instead, they’ve been presented with a surprise bill for $28,717.06 for the past 12 months, seen by this masthead, with no indication of any reduction for the solar power. A sustainability report for the building attached to the contract of sale attributed hot water systems and outdoor pool heating to solar collectors.

 

‘‘It’s outrageous,’’ said one of the apartment owners in the 46-unit Dwell block, former NSW Police intelligence analyst Adam Denyer, 45. ‘‘They’re using our roof, but there’s no benefit to us whatsoever. When we queried the bill, we were told over the phone that the electricity was being sold to Ausgrid and a combination of that and the regular electricity was being sold back to us. They’re making money from us at every turn and now we’ve received this huge bill, and we’re only 12 months old. We’re being shortchanged continually, and fighting this, you feel like Darryl Kerrigan of The Castle.’’

 

The system is part of an embedded network arrangement (ENA), whereby infrastructure providers install systems such as electricity, water, sewerage and internet for free, or for a reduced payment, to developers’ projects, on condition they sign up their apartment buyers to service contracts, which can sometimes be well above market rates.

 

It is becoming increasingly common as it can mean huge savings for developers, who would in the past have borne those costs themselves. But owners have no control over the terms of a contract that was signed at the start of the development.

 

An Ausgrid spokesperson said: ‘‘Ausgrid does not purchase or sell electricity. It is up to the embedded network who they purchase electricity from and how billing arrangements work for the customers within their network.’’ Instead, the distribution network offers a range of pricing options to electricity retailers who then decide if, what and how they will pass them on.

 

New NSW strata laws to come in later this year will mean that there are new disclosure requirements about embedded networks at the point of sale, three-year term limits will apply to embedded electricity supply contracts, and owners corporations will be protected against unfair contract terms.

 

In the case of Dwell a 10-year contract for electricity, hot water and gas with Arc Energy was signed by the building’s then strata manager, Michael Lee of Result Strata. He affixed the Owners Corporation seal to the contract on December 1, 2023, the month before the building’s first meeting of owners, its AGM, on January 29, 2024.

Owners claim they knew nothing about the contract as it wasn’t mentioned at that meeting, according to the minutes.

 

Result Strata and Michael Lee didn’t respond to approaches from this masthead. There is no suggestion Michael Lee or Result Strata engaged in any wrongdoing.

 

Lee and his company have since had their strata licence suspended until May 12 during an ongoing investigation by Fair Trading, pending possible disciplinary action, into separate complaints regarding other properties that do not relate to agreements.

 

Arc Energy didn’t respond to requests for comment, but lawyer Michael Ayache of One Group Legal commented on behalf of Dwell developer Altitude.

 

‘‘ENAs are common in the construction of multi-dwelling buildings,’’ he said. ‘‘It is an express term of an ENA that the service provider is to provide the services in accordance with all energy laws as set down from time to time by the Australian Energy Regulator. In other words, as regulators regulate what rights consumers have in relation to the provision of services to their property, the service provider is required to comply with those laws and are unable to contract out of them.’’

 

Other owners are also furious about the ENA, with bills for individual energy including a charge of nearly a dollar a day to access hot water in addition to usage charges, seen by this masthead. Sebastian Mignacca said: ‘‘It’s unfair and makes us angry.’’

 

A spokesperson for NSW Fair Trading said: ‘‘Fair Trading does not have powers to vary contractual arrangements entered into between parties, nor direct schemes to run their building in certain ways.’’

 

Dwell owner Peter Bishenden, who works as a public servant in defence, says it’s not having a say in arrangements that makes it so difficult. For instance, the contract Lee signed states that the ENA can only be terminated in certain narrow circumstances and would incur a break fee payment of up to $139,752. ‘‘Certainly, it leaves us with very little option other than to just pay for this,’’ he said. ‘‘We haven’t had the chance to say yes or no to whether we want it. There’s no freedom of choice.’’

 

The developer’s lawyer, Ayache, said that individuals could choose to go to a different supplier for their own individual apartments. He supplied a brochure and pointed out that it reads: ‘‘However, you need to advise your preferred supplier that your electricity meter is part of an embedded network. Your preferred supplier will then make arrangements with Arc Energy Group to access the network.’’

 

To actually remove Arc Energy as the main supplier of the building, though, is a complex process only possible in certain circumstances, according to the contract, such as a breach of the service that’s not remedied within a month, and with a substantial schedule of fees.

 

Karen Stiles of apartment owners’ peak body OCN, says the deals are usually free for developers or paid for by utility companies. ‘‘It means they’re then often trapped into expensive and lengthy contracts, to the detriment of owners,’’ she said.

 

 

[spacesailor]

So ! .

Next outage,

  don't complain,  untill the two months of none supply has lapsed. 

A way out of their dilemma. 

Will still  cost them though. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

It looks like the apartment owners have a good case for a class action, under misleading and deceptive conduct under Consumer Law.

 

It seems obvious people have signed documentation without the ramifications of the contract being explained to them, in clear and unambiguous terms. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Unf, in these cases it is not that simple. The general contract law is a thrid party can't be bound to a contract without knowledge and some for of agreement. There will be some form of body corporate, and for larger apartments, these will normally be either a trust or strata company - either way a serparate legal entity - that will have an agreement/contract with the apartment owners. The agreement (contract), is usually in standard form with variations depending on the amenities of the complex, but basically that agreement will be for providing maintenance and services (usually in a schedule) to the apartments in return for a periodical fee and any top ups as required. There will be reaonableness clauses and things like that, but they often allow quite a lot of leeway to the "body corporate".

 

So, energy contract will be between the energy company and the body corporate, and a separate  contract will be between the body corporate and apartment owners. Therefore, in general, the apartment owners are not third parties to the contract between the body corporate and energy provider, because the body corporate has discretion who to contract with to provide those services. The apartment owners are being billed under the body corporate/management agreement. So, as long as the body corporate is conforming to that agreement (and there will normally be a provision of reasonable charges, but that is based on any excess over the costs, not on ensuring the supplier costs are reasonable per se.

 

But there are other areas or law the apartment owners can pursue. There should be a good faith requirement in the body corporate agreement. And if there isn't one, the courts will usually imply a good faith agreement. That being the case, if it can be shown the contract was entered into for the benefit of the developer above the apartment holders and disclosure of the contract would materially affect the price paid, there is a good chance the body corporate could be sued for damages. This would probably only apply to the owners who bought off the plan, though, as they are the ones who are directly implacted; subsequent buyers will probably be taken under the caveat emptor (buyer beware) general rule when buying property as it is as a transfer between twoo provate individuals and not a company selling as product to a consumer.

 

Unless there was an effort by a buyer to understand the nature of the services purchased by the body corporate, there is little chance of misrepresentation, as the body corporate would not have disclosed, let alone misrepresented it. The maxim that the law doesn't suffer fools puts the onus on each party of the contract to seek information, not to disclose it. Obviously in property law, there are mandatory disclosures that have to be made (changes state by state). But, if this is not one of them, then misrep will generally not be available. 

 

The other may be the exit fees being seen as penalties. Although Australian contract law allows penalties (UK law doesn't - only liquidated damages), they will generally have to be proportional. A contract break with a utility company would not normally be seens as such a fundamental risk of the contract to the utility company that it would justify exhorbitant penalties. So, if the $135K or whatever the break amount was,  is, say for one apartments rather than shared amongst all, the court would strike that down and probably, for being such fwits in trying to fleece the apartment holders, reduce the break amouont to zero. What the courts will normally do is reduce it to a reasonable amount based . Similary, if the break amount is the same on the first month and the last month of the contract - i.e. it doesn't have some form of step down, then they will usually do the same. And usually, this will be based on how much the contract would have grossed the utility for the term of the contract minus what has already been paid, plus some for admin charges.

 

So, they probably have some remedy, but unf, it will unlikely be misrepresentation. They will need good lawyers and make sure the electricity company has the funds to cough up the legal bills.

Edited Friday at 06:10 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The maxim that the law doesn't suffer fools puts the onus on each party of the contract to seek information, not to disclose it.

 

 

Just to clarify - not to voluntarily disclose information - they obviously will be under an obligation of disclosure if they are asked.

[old man emu]

Another very good explanation from Jerry.👍

 

What is clear is that the residents have two choices, spend a heap on briefing a legal eagle, with a 50-50 chance of wining/losing, or just pay the bill and cut their losses.

 

This is just another example of people whose expertise in the financial world is not as great as the other party to the deal. Caveat emptor might be the thing to say, but how many of us know the warning signs when entering into big purchasing contracts?

[nomadpete]

So....

 

Not a climate change issue. Nor a renewable energy issue.

 

Just a case of (perceived) real estate rorting.

[spacesailor]

" Climate change ".

It's getting blooody cold .

Which one first.

The electric blanket,  then into bed .

Or stay up with a heater on ? .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Don't use anything electric in your house or you might go DEAD again. BTW WINTER is the cold time of the year. August is generally the coldest month. Nev

[spacesailor]

I was not told , it gets cold in Sydney  NSW.

Only to get used to the stifling heat of summer.

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

You get BOTH in the Western Suburbs of Sydney. I used to LIVE there. Nev

[onetrack]

I lived in Casula for 9 mths during 1970, I didn't think the climate there, was all that bad. Maybe 1970 was a very pleasant year.

[red750]

Lived in Greystanes in the 70's. Had an oil heater and a tank on the wall outside. 

 

[facthunter]

Much Milder near the Beaches.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

Six degrees where I am today.

[Litespeed]

Lovely 28. Degrees.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 degrees here heading for a max of 15.

 

[spacesailor]

22°C here , as balmy as it gets .

Had our morning walk , but the wind was cold in the shade .

No reptiles out today . All snug up in bed . Lo?

spacesailor

[onetrack]

13°C to 22°C here today, quite cloudy, with the odd light shower. It's fining up though, with 15° - 31° and 15° - 30°, and sunny, forecast for Thursday and Friday. We had a very small amount of rain on Saturday, but nothing more in sight for a week or more.

[pmccarthy]

Keeping warm and snug with a lovely coal fire this morning.