A woman demands that DTEK remove a debt from her account, which arose due to an error in the readings – the court's decision on the matter.

A new meter was installed in the apartment where the woman lives. She began receiving electricity bills with a debt of 672 hryvnias. Subsequently, DTEK acknowledged that there was an error in the automated system's data upload, prompting the citizen to request the cancellation of the debt. This was stated in the decision of the Kyiv-Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv Oblast, published on December 16, 2024.

On December 24, 2020, a new metering device was installed at the woman's address. However, starting from January 2022, she has been receiving bills for consumed electricity with an outstanding debt. Even during her lifetime, the former owner of the apartment repeatedly contacted DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks to clarify the nature of the accumulated debt on the subscriber account. According to the final response dated March 2, 2023, the electricity supplier stated that an error was found in the automated electricity consumption data upload, which has since been corrected. She notes discrepancies between the information provided in the electricity payment bills and that in her personal consumer card. The citizen emphasizes that she did not enter into a contract for electricity supply in her name, yet she continues to use the service and pay for it, while disagreeing with DTEK's actions regarding the improper formation of electricity pricing and charges for the service consumed.

Demands of the woman:

• to recognize the debt for consumed electricity that accrued from January 2022 to January 2023, amounting to 672 hryvnias, as unfounded and to oblige its cancellation from her personal account;
• to require DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks to conduct a reconciliation of the actual volumes of electricity consumed from January 2022 to January 2023 for each billing period at the consumer's address, according to the actual readings of the electricity meter, and to prepare a reconciliation act of the electricity consumed with her participation, providing one copy to the consumer;
• to obligate Kyiv Regional Electric Company to adjust the charges for consumed electricity for the period from January 2022 to January 2023 in each billing period based on the act of the volumes of consumed electricity, and to prepare a reconciliation act of consumed and paid electricity.

What was the court's decision?

The court denied the woman’s claim. The evidence did not support that the terms of the electricity supply service were agreed upon by her and the service provider.

“Since May 22, 2000, the contractual relationship for electricity supply at the address has been conducted by the defendant based on a contract concluded with the owner of the property, who has since passed away. According to the copies of payment receipts submitted to the court, the payer was indicated as the apartment owner, even in receipts after her death, such as in payment documents dated December 24, 2022. The relationships regarding the procedure, method, and amount of payment for consumed electricity were agreed upon in a written contract between the service provider and the consumer in accordance with the law. There is no evidence that the terms of the electricity supply service were agreed upon by the plaintiff and the service provider. Under such conditions, the court is deprived of the opportunity to analyze the terms of electricity supply, the cost of the service, possible penalties for late payment, etc., based on which the parties reached an agreement to provide the service and pay for it through their free will. The court cannot evaluate the circumstances of the case through the lens of the conditions that the parties to the dispute agreed upon. Therefore, having examined the case within the limits of the claims made, having thoroughly, fully, and objectively investigated the evidence available in the case, and assessing their relevance, admissibility, credibility, sufficiency, and interconnection, the court concluded that the claims are not subject to satisfaction.”