ST : Dispute over utility charges of $86,000

Oct 29, 2010

Dispute over utility charges of $86,000

Faulty transformer recorded lower power usage: SP

By Judith Tan



According to SP, Mr Phua paid a much lower bill for 3-1/2 years because the faulty transformer was sending irregular data. The terminals of the transformer - which is encased in a metal box - were corroded. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

A BUSINESSMAN is disputing the utility charges he allegedly incurred, after the device meant for recording his consumption accurately failed.

Orchid farm owner Joseph Phua, who runs Orchidville, was shocked when Singapore Power (SP) Services sent him a bill in March for over $86,000 in back charges - for electricity used and not paid for in the last 3-1/2 years.

The reason: The terminals of the transformer, a device that transfers electrical energy from one circuit to another, were corroded, leading to irregular data.

Mr Phua said the hefty bill was a surprise as he had been paying about $10,000 a month for utilities since 2000 and had not defaulted once in his payments.

But according to SP, the transformer fault - discovered in November last year - resulted in Mr Phua, 56, paying a much lower bill for electricity used between April 2006 and November last year.

Mr Phua, however, countered that while he did pay, on average, between $1,500 and $2,600 less during the 3-1/2 years, he attributed the lower bill to cost-cutting measures he took during the economic downturn in 2006/2007.

He has appealed against the hefty bill, but is still being made to pay a monthly instalment of more than $9,000 while the appeal is being reviewed.

Mr Phua said: 'I was told to pay up despite my ongoing appeal otherwise (SP) would shut off my electricity. I am running a business here and I could not afford it doing so.'

The dispute, said lawyers The Straits Times spoke to, could be an interesting test case as it throws up the question of who should be liable for the upkeep of the sealed transformer - the service provider, which relies on it to assess usage, or the property owner.

Lawyer Chia Boon Teck said that on the face of it, the customer should not be liable since he has no access to the terminal point and no duty to maintain it.

He added: 'Even if the customer is contractually bound to maintain the transformer, he should seek legal advice.'

SP Services, however, is maintaining that the onus of ensuring that it is in good working condition lies with Mr Phua.

In an e-mail reply to The Straits Times, its spokesman said that under the Supply Handbook of Metering Requirement, customers are responsible for the maintenance of their transformers, which they own.

Yet, transformers are encased inside a steel box and secured with several seals, ensuring no tampering.

Under the law, anyone guilty of altering or tampering with any meter supplied by an electricity licensee can be fined up to $50,000 or jailed up to three years, or both.

An SP spokesman said while current transformers are sealed in a chamber, the customer can still look through the transparent plastic cover of the chamber and check visually for any oxidation.

Mr Phua also feels that SP's calculation of the back charges is unfair.

SP officials, in an e-mail message, told him that his average monthly electricity consumption before and during the irregularity was 21,000kwh. It was 32,000kwh after it was fixed.

Mr Phua said when SP calculated the difference in back charges, it did not consider two factors - the economic downturn of 2006/2007, and the fact that he had since expanded his business to include a restaurant in 2007 within the 43ha Mandai farm.

In the meantime, Mr Phua has little choice but to continue paying the back charges by instalments until the dispute over the electricity charges can be settled.