The Ombudsman has referred to the resources authority compensation claims for blackouts which Enemalta had refused to consider.
Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino made the recommendation for the Malta Resources Authority to decide on compensation claims against Enemalta in a final opinion on a complaint he received from an individual who had been shown the proverbial door by the corporation when he made his claim.
The man claimed damages as a “direct result of a power outage last June that seriously damaged the electrical installation in his residence”.
But Enemalta shrugged off any responsibility invoking section 14 of the Enemalta Act, which, among other things, says that the corporation “shall not be liable for any damage to person or property or for any cessation of the supply of energy which may be due to unavoidable accident, fair wear and tear or overloading due to unauthorised connection of apparatus, or to the reasonable requirements of the electrical system, or to the defects in any electrical installation not provided by the corporation”.
Dr Said Pullicino, a former Chief Justice, said that such blanket disclaimers had been judicially declared to be non-binding, especially when “the party disclaiming responsibility is a dominant public authority, enjoying a monopoly and providing an essential service to the citizen who must necessarily require that service from it”.
The Ombudsman noted that, in the past, Enemalta had a different, more consumer-friendly approach to customers but in recent months there “seems to have been a hardening of Enemalta’s position”.
In fact, this was not the first such case being handled by the Ombudsman. In recent months, when reviewing similar cases, he had suggested the setting up of an independent board to examine cases where damages were incurred by power surges.
So far, to challenge Enemalta, one would have to go to an arbitration board and the Ombudsman noted that arbitration was “costly, time consuming, confrontational and adversarial”. Moreover, the EU Energy Directive calls specifically for an extra-judicial mechanism to treat complaints and which was independent of the energy service provider.
Enemalta resisted the proposal, stressing that the arbitration board was enough and that there was a pending court case before the Constitutional Court on the matter.
Dr Said Pullicino stressed the corporation’s stand was unsatisfactory in that it went against the spirit of the EU Energy Directive.
The MRA had the technical competence and structures to investigate power cuts, establish their cause and identify responsibility. Also, consumer protection was one of the MRA’s main objectives. Thus, the Ombudsman said the “safest and surest way” to abide by the EU directive governing the issue was to “strengthen the structures of the Malta Resources Authority”.
“It is about time that public authorities and corporations in Malta recognise this new culture that has thankfully taken root in the European Union and that is finding its way in the public administration and sanctioned by the case law of our courts,” the Ombudsman said.
The Kirkop local council had helped nearly 20 individuals, including two band clubs, file claims for compensation from Enemalta for damage incurred following a 24-hour power cut two weeks ago.
In 2009, Enemalta paid consumers €65,092 for 151 compensation claims, nearly double the amount paid out in the previous year. Last year, towns and villages across Malta and Gozo spent a total of 2,350 hours without power.