ACCC to investigate energy plans that promise savings but deliver poor value
This investigation follows a formal complaint filed by Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE), which raised concerns that many plans marketed as "savings" deals are far from the cheapest options available.
The investigation came after consumer group CHOICE filed its first 'designated complaint' to the ACCC in May.
Under a new framework that came into effect in May the previous year, CHOICE is one of three bodies that can file a 'super complaint' directly with the ACCC about issues affecting consumers.
Each body can file only one complaint per year. Once it is submitted, the ACCC is required to assess and publicly respond within 90 days.
CHOICE decided to use its one complaint to flag concerns that energy retailers use words like 'saver' or 'savings' to promote energy plans that are far from the cheapest available.
"At a time when Australians are increasingly worried about being able to afford to keep the lights on, this has had a big financial impact," Andy Kollmorgen, Investigations Editor at CHOICE, said in a statement.
CHOICE's complaint points to a major issue with how energy retailers advertise "savings" plans.
"In some instances, they were even more expensive than the retailer's standing offer," says Rosie Thomas, CHOICE director of campaigns and communications.
"Many consumers rely on these representations as indicators of value to inform their decision-making, but we found that many of these names and descriptions may not reflect genuine value."
According to the latest national CHOICE survey, 84 per cent of households are concerned about rising electricity prices.
But with so many plans marketed with promises of savings, it's hard for consumers to tell if they're actually getting a better deal.
"We are concerned that consumers may be misled or deceived by plan names or descriptions of plans that offer 'savings' that are not genuine, or that consumers may be discouraged from switching to cheaper plans that are available to them," ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said.
"It is essential that energy retailers provide clear and accurate information about their energy plans so that consumers can make informed decisions when choosing an energy provider and plan."
The confusion doesn't stop at the "savings" labels.
Many energy retailers use identical names for plans that come with different rates, leading to further confusion for consumers.
This issue is especially prevalent with the "better offer" and "best offer" messages on energy bills, which are meant to alert customers to cheaper plans available within the same provider.
Unfortunately, these plans aren't always cheaper.
A recent decision from the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) requires retailers to provide extra information under "better offer" messages when reusing plan names.
"Consumers are often encouraged to shop around in order to save on their energy bills, but that's impossible to do if the information they receive from retailers is inaccurate, incomplete or designed to overwhelm," says Ms Thomas.
The ACCC said that after careful consideration, the issues raised by CHOICE relating to the use of identical plan names in "better offer" and "best offer" messaging, are "most effectively addressed through the review and law reform processes currently underway by the AER and the ESC" and not an ACCC investigation.
If the ACCC finds that energy retailers are breaching Australian Consumer Law following its investigation, it may take enforcement action where appropriate.
It may also "prepare industry guidance or contribute to policy or law reform initiatives".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Federal politics live: Former ACCC chair Rod Sims calls approvals for new homes, energy projects 'embarrassment'
Former ACCC chair Rod Sims says the approval processes for housing, commercial development, renewable energy projects and mining projects are an "embarrassment for Australia" and must be fixed. Follow our live coverage below.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Monto residents anxious about potential QCoal mine's impacts
A patchwork of lush green fields, tilled red soil and swaying crops stretch over the horizon of a rural piece of regional Queensland. It is hard to imagine this fertile land, dotted with old dairy sheds, being used for anything other than farming. But the tiny towns of Monto and Mulgildie in the North Burnett, almost 500 kilometres north of Brisbane, have faced decades of uncertainty about the landscape they love being transformed into an open-cut coal mine. The Monto Coal Mine, owned by subsidiaries of QCoal, was first approved in part 20 years ago without the need for an environmental impact study (EIS). If built, the mine could produce about 1.2 million tonnes of thermal coal each year, which is burned to make electricity. The Queensland Environment Department said in a statement mineral licences were "rigorously" assessed for the greenfield site, which spanned up to 648 hectares of cropping and grazing land. QCoal declined to discuss the Monto project, or its future, when approached by the ABC. The state government under Labor's Peter Beattie first granted a mining lease covering more than 470 hectares in 2005. The company applied for another lease over an extra 178 hectares nearby in 2011, which is yet to be approved. For now, the land remains untouched. Maree Kimber's property borders the potential mine site. She is concerned about what the development would do to the small community's water supply and health. "The thought of [the mine] always hangs over, that never disappears," Ms Kimber said. "It never dissipates, it's always there." Having bought her property in 2016, Ms Kimber knew it was beside a mining lease, but said she underestimated amount of anxiety that would come with the uncertainty. "How you go about where you spend your money, and how you go about improving [the property's] infrastructure, you think, 'Well, if this mine goes ahead, what is that going to look like for my farm going forward?'" she said. Ms Kimber said a lack of transparency also added to the worry. "I have only ever received two updates, two letters, just generic letters … nothing directly on the plans for the mine. "Knowledge would give you a better idea of exactly what's coming our way." In July, new state planning laws came into effect, making wind and solar farms subject to public notification and requiring companies to show how their renewable projects benefited the community. But the proposed open-cut coal mine in Monto escaped the same stringent conditions. Monto community advocate Paul Stephenson has been fighting to stop the mine being extended in the Land and Environment Court. He said he wanted historical coal mines included in the new rules covering renewable projects. "If you're going to require EISs for wind farms and solar farms, then of course you should be requiring [one] for an open-cut coal mine on prime agricultural land," Mr Stephenson said. Andrew Kwan from Queensland's Environmental Defenders Office said Qcoal and others would only have to get an EIS if they wanted to extract more coal. "A major factor may be that the Monto Coal Mine's proposed 1.2 million tonnes [annual extraction] is below that EIS trigger threshold of two million [tonnes]," Mr Kwan said. He said keeping coal volumes under that threshold meant mining companies could avoid environmental assessments. Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Dale Last, said the state's mining industry operated under a strict regulatory framework that balanced the rights of landholders and the environment. The department said approvals required the site to be rehabilitated once mining was complete. Gilbert Louttit's beef grazing property is also close to the proposed mining lease. He said he was not convinced the land could again be farmed if coal was ever mined on the site. "I'm a third-generation farmer and there's some pretty valuable ecosystems there," Mr Louttit said. "It's not going to be the same farmland as it was so I'm concerned that mining will really degrade the land. "As well as they might try to rehabilitate it, it will never be good for farming again." His wife Emma Scragg was also concerned about how a mine would change the community. "The rural nature of this area is what makes this town what it is, and this region what it is, and I think [a mine] would just change the culture," she said. Gooreng Gooreng man Douglas Graham was concerned about flow-on effects to country and sacred sites. "When you're destroying cultural heritage areas, natural wildlife habitats and ruining the environment and taking copious amounts of water from the aquifer, it has an effect on other areas," Mr Graham said, speaking on behalf of western Gooreng Gooreng elders. The Australia Institute research director and economist, Rod Campbell, said stalled projects like the Monto Coal Mine were financially and environmentally unviable. "That's kind of bad for companies, but it's also terrible for the community that has to live around the project with the uncertainty of this kind of zombie project." Mr Campbell said state governments needed the courage to intervene. "Instead, they've left it to the mining companies and community groups to fight it out and see who wins," he said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Healthbridge Capital investors left in the dark after $33 million freeze
When Kassem Chalabi put $700,000 into an investment fund five years ago, he thought his life savings would be safe. He is one of more than 200 people and charities that invested nearly $33 million into Healthbridge Capital, which can no longer access their money. "My future is gone." The 64-year-old father from South Granville said he was promised high returns and was told his money would be invested in discount chemist chain, Pharmacy4Less. "First of the month, we used to get a transfer between 8.5 and 9.5-10 per cent, and for four years, it was perfect," Mr Chalabi said. "Within two to three years, people started to add up to the fund, and you know, everyone was happy." According to the product disclosure statement given to investors, Healthbridge provided "capital finance" and "financial accommodation" to pharmacy franchises under the Pharmacy4Less brand. But earlier this year, the payments stopped. "We started to hear about rumours. Rumours that something [was] wrong," Mr Chalabi said. If you have any information about a story, contact Nabil Al-Nashar Back in February 2024, payments were delayed for the first time, according to multiple investors, before then stopping in February 2025. Hossam Farouk said he had invested $10,000 in the fund. "Maybe my amount [is] not significant like other[s], but you know it is something I have done in my life, I was proud of it, and suddenly I feel it is already gone, so I'm feeling unhappy about that. It is my right," Mr Farouk said. In late March this year, the now-panicked investors received a notice from investment company Cache saying it had bought Healthbridge Capital and frozen all accounts. A spokesperson for Cache said the freezing of the accounts came after the company had "became aware of potential financial irregularities in the fund's portfolio" soon after it took over its management from the previous responsible entity of Quay Fund. Quay Fund told the ABC it was acquired by Cache Group in February last year and was renamed by Cache. "Quay and Cache do not have any common management, employees or shareholders; they are separate businesses," a spokesperson said. According to the product disclosure statement given to investors, they could get their money out within 60 days of putting in a request. Along with at least four other investors, Mr Farouk tried to get his money as far back as March 2024, but despite the 60-day redemption period, they never received their money. Some investors believe they were left in the dark. Others told the ABC they feel everyone who persuaded them to invest their savings in Healthbridge Capital has now washed their hands of it. Stefano Calabretta is the lawyer representing 46 of the investors, and he is preparing to try and get their money back. "The reality is that what this fund was doing was merely advancing money as a lender to these pharmacies or to other organisations in the healthcare space." Mr Chalabi said that in the multiple pitches, it was also claimed that the investment was "sharia compliant". This was an important distinction for investors who wanted to make sure their investments were in accordance with Islamic finance customs. Interest on loans is prohibited in Islamic finance. The product disclosure statement given to investors said the fund avoided "banks and other conventional lenders" where there is a potential for paying or charging interest. Investors who spoke to the ABC said they now doubt the fund was sharia-compliant due to its lending practices. Senior lecturer on religion and law from Western Sydney University Maria Bhatti said if an organisation was purporting to be sharia compliant but was not, it could be considered "misleading and deceptive conduct" and "dealt with according to Australian law". Cache said the fund acquired its sharia compliance certification in February 2025. "Shariah Compliance does not prohibit all lending. The assets were structured in a manner that meets the requirements of [the Financial Shariah Advisory and Consultancy group] — and passed certification," it said. Cache said it was now trying to sell two of the 11 Pharmacy4Less franchises the scheme invested in to recoup some of the money for investors. In addition to freezing the fund in March 2025, it also hired "forensic accountants" to investigate. "Cache recognises that these developments have caused distress for investors, particularly investors who may have been relying on income distributions," the statement said. While it could not reveal figures, the company said "it has already recovered some funds and believes its efforts will ultimately result in a material recovery for investors". After filing a complaint with ASIC in May, the investors received an automated response saying the agency would "register and consider your report," and that it "does not resolve complaints, intervene in disputes, give legal advice or act to get your money back". They've also reached out to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which said it would now be progressed "to the Case Management Stage". According to AFCA, it could be weeks before a case worker is assigned to the complaint. Mr Chalabi won't be able to retire anymore. "I'm old enough for early retirement. Now I can't, I have to work harder than before," he said. "All this money was my future.
