Latest news with #AshleydeSilva
West Australian
21-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
‘Making it harder': Energy providers accused of deceptive practice
Australian consumers are getting ripped off $171 a year on their power bills due to remarkably simple trick by the electricity providers. According to research by Choice, Australians are getting ripped off by their power company due to deliberately confusing names. Choice alleges electricity providers are using the same name on two different energy plans, meaning unexpected Aussies are paying more for their power than they need to. Choice chief executive Ashley de Silva said it shouldn't be this hard to know if you're being ripped off on your energy bill. 'The potential impact of this practice is significant,' says De Silva. 'Choice estimates that reusing identical names for plans with differing prices could, in aggregate, be costing consumers approximately $65 million in savings.' In a lodgement to the ACCC the consumer group claims electricity providers deliberately make it harder for Australians to switch plans. The Australian Energy Regulator added a requirement in September 2023, forcing the energy retailers to make it easier for consumers to understand. As part of these changes power companies have to tell customers on their bills if they have a cheaper plan available and how much they could save by switching. The guideline requires a compulsory 'better offer' statement on the first page of the bill, under the heading 'Could you save money on another plan?' Choice claims to have collected almost 400 energy bills from January to March 2025, finding 64 energy plans have identical names. As such, Choice alleges Australians believe they are on the cheapest plan possible and are paying more than they should for electricity. 'Across these 64 examples, people could have saved an average of $171 annually had they switched to the cheaper plan, even though it had the same name. 'The highest potential savings amongst these examples was $588 per year.' Ms De Silva said the energy market is already difficult for Aussie households to navigate without the need for misleading practices such as using the same name on plans. 'At a time when we're all looking for ways to save, energy companies are making it harder and harder to know what you're paying and why,' De Silva said. 'This practice is extremely confusing, and potentially misleading or deceptive. 'Supporters who shared their bills with CHOICE often thought that the offer to save money by switching to a plan with an identical name was a mistake, and likely missed out on significant savings.' The submission to the ACCC comes on the eve of millions of Australians paying more for their power. Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has released its latest default market offer (DMO) draft determination in April which is the maximum households living in NSW, South Australia and South East Queensland will be paying. Under the draft, households' power bills could rise between 2.5 and 8.9 per cent depending on where a person lives. Small business customers could see rises between 4.2 and 8.2 per cent.
Sky News AU
21-05-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Energy retailers accused of misleading customers with 'sneaky' price tactics in landmark complaint lodged to ACCC
Consumer watchdog CHOICE has lodged a "super-complaint" with the ACCC targeting Australia's energy retail sector. In July 2024, CHOICE, alongside the Consumer Action Law Centre and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, was recognised by the federal government as one of the first organisations in Australia authorised to file a 'designated complaint'- a grievance similar to the UK's 'super complaint' - with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The consumer watchdog argues energy retailers' "complicated and confusing" price tactics are the 'stuff of nightmares' and are intended to keep people 'as confused as possible.' The action marks the first designated complaint from CHOICE and only the second example of this kind of action in Australian history. The 'super-complaint' flagged concerns over 'potentially misleading' tactics, namely advertisement of new plans that are cheaper yet have an identical name, suggesting customers who were under the impression they were already on the best deal are unknowingly stuck with a higher price. Ahead of lodging the complaint, CHOICE reviewed 382 energy bills issued between January and March 2025, 64 of which advertised a legally required 'best' or 'better offer' with the same names as the ones customers were already on. CHOICE CEO Ashley de Silva said customers were led to believe they were already on the best plan because of the duplicate names. 'Across these 64 examples, people could have saved an average of $171 annually had they switched to the cheaper plan, even though it had the same name. The highest potential savings amongst these examples was $588 per year," Mr de Silva said. "The potential impact of this practice is significant. CHOICE estimates that reusing identical names for plans with differing prices could, in aggregate, be costing consumers approximately $65 million in savings.' A 2024 review by the ACCC found that 81 per cent of consumers could have saved money by switching offers. "It shouldn't be this hard to know if you're being ripped off on your energy bill," Mr de Silva said. "We're calling on the ACCC to enforce the law with strong court action to put an end to these dodgy practices costing consumers money." In addition to the identical names, CHOICE has urged the ACCC to probe whether energy retailers are breaking the law by using names and descriptions that imply savings for poor-value plans, as well as encouraging consumers to switch to plans the customer is not eligible for. "CHOICE can only submit one designated complaint each year, and much like the Shonky Awards, we only use it for the most serious issues we see. We are calling on the ACCC to urgently investigate these sneaky tactics used by energy retailers to confuse and potentially mislead consumers," Mr de Silva said. The ACCC must publicly respond to the complaint within 90 days.
