A Dnipro resident demands DTEK to cancel a charge of 7,261 UAH for unaccounted electricity, following the court's decision.

Employees of DTEK found violations at the woman's address. An act was drawn up against her, and she was required to pay for unaccounted electricity in the amount of 7261 hryvnias, but she refuses to comply. This is stated in the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnipro (the legal name of the court), published on December 8, 2022.

On December 8, 2020, employees of JSC "DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks" detected violations in the woman's house, specifically electromagnetic interference on the meter with a special device. They dismantled the meter and drew up an act of violation. On January 9, 2021, she received a letter from JSC "DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks," which included the act of violation No. 024588 dated December 8, 2020, and an invitation to a commission meeting to review this act.

According to the decision of the commission reviewing the act of violation dated January 15, 2021, the woman was ordered to pay for unaccounted electricity in the amount of 7261 hryvnias for the period from December 8, 2019, to December 8, 2020. She categorically disagrees with the content of act No. 024588 dated December 8, 2020, and the decision of the commission reviewing this act, formalized in protocol No. 533 dated January 15, 2021, drawn up by the employees of JSC "DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks," and requests that they be declared illegal and canceled.

"The actions of the defendant on December 8, 2020, when drawing up the act of violation at the plaintiff's address were entirely lawful; the procedure for detecting the violation of electricity theft complied with the Retail Electricity Market Rules," DTEK stated.

What was the court's decision?

The court partially satisfied the woman’s claim. The decision of the commission reviewing act No. 024588 dated December 8, 2020, formalized in protocol No. 533 dated January 15, 2021, was recognized as unlawful and canceled.

"The case materials indicate that in protocol No. 533 dated January 15, 2021, the participation of a consumer representative was recorded at the commission meeting reviewing act No. 024588 dated December 8, 2020, with the identity verified by a passport. However, this fact was not confirmed during the consideration of the case, as the specified passport belonged directly to the plaintiff, who was in another country on the day of the commission meeting, as confirmed by bus tickets. Thus, considering the established circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Retail Electricity Market Rules, the court concluded that the act of violation of the Retail Electricity Market Rules dated December 8, 2020, No. 024588, was considered in violation of the procedure established by the Retail Electricity Market Rules, which indicates a violation of the plaintiff's rights that are subject to protection by the court. Evaluating the disputed commission's decision regarding whether the violation recorded in act No. 024588 dated December 8, 2021, occurred, the court established that it was made in violation of the procedure established by law," the court emphasized.