A man paid his electricity bills, but DTEK claimed he owed 44,846 hryvnias. The court has made a decision regarding this debt.

Employees of DTEK have terminated the electricity supply to a man's apartment due to alleged violations. He is required to pay for damages from unaccounted electricity amounting to 44,846 hryvnias. However, he refuses to pay, claiming that he has settled all his bills. This is stated in the decision of the Industrial District Court of Dnipro (the legal name of the court), published on January 1, 2025.

On April 23, 2019, officials from Kramatorsk RES of PJSC "DTEK Donetskoblenergo" drafted act No. 2226809 regarding violations of the retail electricity market rules, subsequently cutting off the electricity supply to the man's apartment. Further, according to a decision by DTEK documented in protocol No. 628 dated May 6, 2019, damages for unaccounted electricity were charged in the amount of 44,846 hryvnias.

The man filed a complaint with the National Commission for State Regulation in the Spheres of Energy and Utilities (NKREKU), and according to the findings of an NKREKU inspection dated July 24, 2019, the violations of his rights as a consumer were confirmed. PJSC "DTEK Donetsk Electric Networks" was required to review his appeal at a commission meeting within a month, as stipulated by the regulations (to reconsider the act), and to invite him; however, this was not done, and his violated rights as an electricity consumer were not restored, receiving only a formal response without any real consideration. Furthermore, the unauthorized connection was classified as something that could not have been detected during the inspection, and the cost of unaccounted electricity was charged for three years prior to the detection of the violation, specifically from April 24, 2016, to April 23, 2019.

According to p. 3.7 of the Methodology for Determining the Volume and Cost of Electricity Not Accounted for Due to Violations of Electricity Usage Rules by Consumers in the Event of Damage Charges, this amount should be reduced by the sum that the man paid over the entire calculation period. He and his wife, as the owners of the apartment, duly paid all bills for electricity usage; however, these amounts were not deducted from the damages. According to available receipts, they paid for electricity a total of 8,524 hryvnias.

"PJSC 'DTEK Donetsk Electric Networks' filed a lawsuit regarding the recovery of the debt from the man based on the violation act No. 226809 dated April 23, 2019, in the amount of 44,846 hryvnias, which was charged in accordance with the commission meeting protocol No. 628 dated May 6, 2019. On March 7, 2024, the court's decision fully satisfied the claim of PJSC 'DTEK Donetsk Electric Networks' and recovered the debt for the consumed electricity unaccounted for by the metering device in the amount of 44,846 hryvnias. The court's decision came into force on April 9, 2024. Currently, the decision in case No. 234/20080/19, production No. 2/202/1118/2024 is active, and the circumstances established in the decision have not been canceled. The plaintiff did not mention any fact of violation of his rights in his claim, nor did he provide evidence of his involvement in the violation identified according to act No. 226809 dated April 23, 2019. The receipts attached to the claim regarding the payment for consumed electricity indicate that he is not a consumer of services at the specified address. Furthermore, he has not proven with proper and admissible evidence that the court's decision regarding the specified act was canceled," - stated DTEK.

What was the court's decision?

The court denied the man's claim. PJSC "DTEK Donetsk Electric Networks" lawfully compiled protocol No. 628 dated May 6, 2019, based on the act of violation, and calculated the damages in accordance with the provisions of the RET.

The court believes that the act of violation No. 226809 dated April 23, 2019, was drawn up by authorized persons in the order and form established by the RET. PJSC "DTEK Donetsk Electric Networks" lawfully compiled protocol No. 628 dated May 6, 2019, based on the act of violation, and calculated the damages in accordance with the provisions of the RET. The plaintiff did not provide evidence of his involvement in the violation identified according to act No. 226809 dated April 23, 2019, and did not prove with proper and admissible evidence that the court's decision regarding the specified act was canceled. In light of the above, the court considers the plaintiff's claims to be unfounded," - emphasized the court.