A man did not sign any contracts with DTEK, yet he was billed a debt of 107,625 UAH. Here’s what the court decided.

Employees of DTEK discovered a violation at the man's address, which involved unauthorized electrical wiring connections to the network. He is being asked to pay an amount of 107,625 hryvnias for unaccounted electricity, but he refuses, claiming he did not enter into any contracts with the company. This was mentioned in the decision of the Kyiv-Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv Oblast, published on June 7, 2023.

On January 14, 2019, authorized representatives of Kyivoblenergo during an inspection at the man's address identified violations of clauses 5.5.5, subclause 1, and clause 7.6 of the Retail Electricity Market Rules, approved by the resolution of the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities No. 312 dated March 14, 2018, namely: “Unauthorized connection of the consumer's wiring by connecting to the networks owned by Kyivoblenergo. The consumed electricity is not recorded.” The commission, in reviewing the acts on February 20, 2019, made a decision, formalized in protocol No. 262, to determine and charge the cost of the volume of unaccounted electricity due to the consumer's violation of the Retail Electricity Market Rules in accordance with clause 3.1.5 of the methodology approved by the NCRE resolution dated May 4, 2006, No. 562, which amounted to 107,625 hryvnias. DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks requested to recover from him the cost of unaccounted electricity due to the violation of retail market rules amounting to 107,625 hryvnias.

By default judgment of the Kyiv-Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv Oblast dated September 14, 2020, the man was ordered to pay in favor of the private joint-stock company Kyivoblenergo the cost of electricity unaccounted due to the violation of retail electricity market rules in the amount of 107,625 hryvnias. On January 11, 2023, a request for a review of the default judgment was filed with the court. Disagreeing with the claim and the decision made, he indicated that he only became aware of the decision after receiving an order from the private executor to initiate enforcement proceedings. He did not receive any court summonses, so he could not know about the case hearing. Furthermore, the decision was made without clarifying all the circumstances of the case. The citizen had never entered into or signed any contracts with DTEK, thus he did not commit any violations. The contract added by the company was not signed by him. Additionally, there was a civil case No. 369/11009/17 in the court regarding the seizure of a residential house. Considering that he is seriously ill, he was also unaware of the existence of this case. He requested the court to cancel the default judgment.

On February 13, 2023, objections to the request for a review of the default judgment were submitted to the court. DTEK's representative stated that in execution of the court decision, the private executor initiated enforcement proceedings, and since August 2022, deductions from the man's funds began, and the debt now amounts to 87,998 hryvnias. Indeed, there was no written contract between the parties for the provision of electricity, but the violation act was drawn up stating that he did not install metering devices in his property and unlawfully connected to the company's electricity network. The contract number indicated in the payment documents is generated independently.

On March 8, 2023, DTEK submitted a request to the court to reduce the amount of the claims. They indicated that as a result of the violation, the man was charged for unaccounted electricity amounting to 107,625 hryvnias. The private executor partially transferred funds to the consumer's account, so the current debt is 87,998 hryvnias.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the claim. DTEK failed to provide evidence that the man, through his actions, violated subclause 1 of clause 5.5.5 of the specified Rules and caused property damage in the amount of 107,625 hryvnias.

"In considering this case, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the defendant's actions violated subclause 1 of clause 5.5.5 of the specified Rules and caused property damage in the amount of 107,625 hryvnias. The materials of the case and publicly available sources indicate that the house and land plot were in the continuous use of the owners, whose ownership rights were unlawfully alienated. Furthermore, the case materials lack information on what grounds the plaintiff identified the specific citizen as the offender. Thus, the violation act contains statements made 'according to words,' and there is no evidence in the case materials regarding who owned the house as of January 14, 2019. Data from the State Land Cadastre as of February 20, 2019, cannot automatically determine the owner of real estate, nor confirm the commissioning of the house, whether it is a residential or non-residential building. The aforementioned civil case has the number 369/11009/17, which confirms that the claim was filed in court back in 2017. Considering the circumstances established by the court and the evidence presented, the court concludes that the claim should be denied," the court emphasized.