Recommendation 1 of the 2017 Annual Report

1. Observation

The complainant failed to understand the volume of his electricity consumption for a specific period. He suspected a malfunction of his meter and asked for verification by a sworn technician.

2. Mediation solution

After analysis of the file, the Mediation team failed to identify any anomaly either in the reading or in the billing of electricity consumption. However, the nature of the reading of electricity consumption (actual or estimated) is not specified on the bill; this can make billing difficult to understand.

ENEDIS confirmed the reliability of the electricity meter for measuring consumption. In addition, it verified the consistency of consumption with that of previous tenants in the premises: after analysis, it did not find any significant difference in recorded consumption.

The balance claimed was therefore payable by the complainant to the supplier. But the presentation of consumption on the regularising bill misled him. In a mediation process, a free payment plan was proposed to the complainant.

3. Generic observation

The Happ’e bill does not present the difference between the estimated and actual consumption in the consumption balance indicated on the bill, which can cause misunderstanding by the customer.

Example: when the estimated readings are lower than the actual readings, the statement gives the impression of significantly higher consumption at the end of the regularisation period, than when the bill is based on actual readings. This causes misunderstanding and, as a result, dissatisfaction among customers seeking to optimise their consumption.

4. Recommendation / generic solution

The energy bill must show, in a legible manner, certain items of information and, in particular, the period covered by the consumption, specifying whether the billed usage is estimated, actual or transmitted by the customer, as specified in the order of 18 April 2012 relating to energy supply bills.