DTEK accuses a man of a violation and demands 217,530 hryvnias – the court's decision has been made.

Employees of DTEK discovered a violation at the address of a man, which involved an unauthorized connection to the electrical network. He is being asked to pay an amount of 217,530 hryvnias, but he refuses. This is stated in the decision of the October District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (the legal name of the court), published on April 22, 2019.

On December 21, 2018, DTEK representatives identified a violation of the retail electricity market rules during an inspection, specifically, an unauthorized connection of power receivers to the electrical network. On January 9, 2019, the commission reviewed the violation report and decided to charge him 217,530 hryvnias based on paragraph 3.1, formula 2.7 of the Damage Methodology. He disagrees with this decision, as the contract No. 516 from October 8, 2003, with the energy supplier specifies the boundary of the electrical networks on the insulators of pole No. 45371 VL-0.4 kV TP-977 RB-3, and according to the violation report, along with the attached diagram and photographs, the unauthorized connection was made from an unnumbered pole, which indicates that the unauthorized connection was not made at his address, nor in his house; the report only mentions violation point 5.5.5 of the PRREE, and does not specify a sub-point. The report was signed and handed over not to him, but to his mother-in-law, which violates paragraph 8.2.5 of the PRREE.

Moreover, it has not been taken into account that the man has a household electrical generator that automatically starts when there is a power outage in the household. The unauthorized connection was established without the installation of special measuring instruments, and the diagram of the power supply provided by DTEK does not graphically depict any interference with the accounting scheme. There are no references to violations of seals and accounting devices, which violates the Commercial Accounting Code of Electricity. Overall, it is unclear from the diagram where and how the unauthorized connection was found, and which wires were used. He was not provided with the calculation of the volume and cost of the unaccounted electricity; the calculation itself is incorrect and lacks references to the relevant points of the methodology. Considering the above, citing the norms of Articles 526 and 614 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Laws of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," "On the Electricity Market," PRREE, the Commercial Accounting Code of Electricity, and the Methodology for Determining the Volume and Cost of Electricity, he requested to declare DTEK's actions in making the decision formalized by protocol No. 2 dated January 9, 2019, illegal and to cancel the decision.

"According to the graphic representation, electrical wiring has been laid into the man's house from two different overhead lines, which fully corresponds to reality, as this is how the unauthorized connection was made. Thus, the metering device is connected from TP-977 RB-5 on the pole in his yard; the unauthorized connection was made from the other side behind the house, where a cable was laid from the pole going to a box with a switch installed on the fence, allowing for unaccounted consumption of electrical energy, which indeed contradicts the technical conditions since the connection of the household should only be made from one pole of the overhead power line. The violation report (point 3) specifies the points of unauthorized connection of wires and their cross-sections involved in the unauthorized connection scheme. The cross-section of the wires was seized by the defendant's representatives, and on December 21, 2018, an act of measuring the cable sample was also drawn up, with the wire's cross-section measured using a caliper No. 0504070 (whose calibration date is June 18, 2018). The plaintiff was present at the commission meeting with his representative lawyer, where the photos and video recordings of the identified violation were reviewed and studied; the essence of the violation was explained to him, and the relevant point of the Methodology under which the damages were calculated was indicated," - stated DTEK.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the man’s claim. The violation report identified a method of electricity theft, with the connection point indicated on the diagram, and no objections regarding the legality of the actions of the energy supplier's employees when drawing up the report were raised. During the review of the report at the commission meeting, the fact of unaccounted electricity consumption was not refuted, which entitled the commission to review the report and apply the Methodology in calculating damages.

"As can be seen from the sales contract dated June 24, 2003, and the technical passport for house No. 181, it is located on a land plot with a total area of 2048 sq.m, and has a fence of 1-7. It is on this fence that the defendant's representatives discovered the switch that connected the unaccounted cable coming from the defendant's pole VL-0.4 behind the house from the side of Naberezhna Street. Thus, the defendant proved that the final consumption of electricity outside the metering devices was indeed performed by the consumer, and therefore it does not matter where the connection was discovered, as the law does not contain requirements regarding the location of the unauthorized connection," - emphasized the court.