A Kyiv resident demands 60,000 hryvnias in compensation from DTEK for threats of electricity disconnection in her apartment. The court's decision is pending.

A woman was compelled to pay an electricity debt amounting to 502 hryvnias. She believes that DTEK extorted money from her, as she was threatened with a cutoff of electricity supply to her apartment in case of non-payment. The citizen is demanding compensation of 60,000 hryvnias from the company. This is stated in the decision of the Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv, published on December 12, 2024.

On October 2, 2024, the woman received a registered letter - warning No. 56704/3/01/1 dated September 19, 2024, in which DTEK demanded that she urgently pay the outstanding electricity debt for her apartment, supposedly consumed before 2019, and threatened to completely cut off the electricity supply to her apartment on October 14, 2024, at 08:00 if she failed to pay. She notes that DTEK does not supply her with electricity. The functions of the electricity supplier for residential consumers in Kyiv are performed by LLC Kyiv Energy Services. The citizen pays monthly for the electricity consumed in her apartment based on the actual readings of the electricity meter and does not have any outstanding debts for the service.

On October 4, 2024, the woman contacted DTEK with a written request to urgently provide documents confirming the existence of her debt. However, as of October 11, 2024, the company had not provided any documents. As a result of the threats of electricity disconnection, she was forced to pay DTEK 502 hryvnias on October 11, 2024, to avoid illegal disconnection of electricity on October 14, 2024. Thus, DTEK inflicted moral and material damage upon her, as it effectively obtained funds from her under pressure and extortion for a debt, the existence of which had not been proven by the date of the warning and the disconnection date. The citizen estimates the extent of such damage to be around 60,000 hryvnias.

"Due to the presence of a debt as of September 19, 2024, in JSC 'DTEK Kyiv Electric Networks' for electricity consumed before January 1, 2019, amounting to 502 hryvnias at the plaintiff's address, the company sent recommendations on September 25, 2024, based on the warning dated September 19, 2024, No. 56704/3/01/1. The electricity supply was not disconnected based on the sent warning, and JSC 'DTEK Kyiv Electric Networks' did not violate the rights of the plaintiffs in any way," DTEK stated.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the woman’s claim. There is no evidence confirming the violation of DTEK's rights or any material or moral harm caused to her.

"Due to the presence of a debt as of September 19, 2024, in JSC 'DTEK Kyiv Electric Networks' for electricity consumed before January 1, 2019, amounting to 502 hryvnias at the address, the defendant sent a registered letter on September 25, 2024, based on the warning dated September 19, 2024, No. 56704/3/01/1. The electricity supply was not disconnected based on the sent warning. The warning about the cessation of electricity supply is an informational message regarding the existing debt, allowing the consumer to avoid disconnection by paying the debt or entering into a restructuring agreement. The court notes that the existence of a debt for electricity consumed before January 1, 2019, arose because payments were not made based on the actual readings of the electricity meter and, consequently, not according to the corresponding tariffs. The defendant informed the plaintiff about the debt through letters, including one dated January 25, 2019, No. 1/3/012/442, and another dated December 24, 2019, 1/3/012/N-29332, but the debt remained unpaid. Analyzing the disputed legal relationship and the above-mentioned legal norms, the court established the absence of proper and admissible evidence confirming the violation of rights by the defendant and the infliction of material or moral harm to the plaintiff. Thus, in accordance with the current civil legislation, the court finds it appropriate to deny the claim in full," the court emphasized.