The new independent ESB arbitration office received 221 complaints in its first nine months in office.
ELCOM, the ESB Customer Complaints Arbitrator, awarded a total of £18,492 in compensation to about 40 customers who had problems with billing, supply, quality of work, communications and voltage levels.
Of the 221 complaints received in the nine months from April last year, 27 dealt with appliance sales, public lighting and other areas outside ELCOM's terms of reference. A total of 16 complaints were unresolved at the end of last year, and the remaining 178 were resolved, either by the arbitrator's office or the ESB on referral from the office.
The highest number of complaints resolved - 55 - were about metering, billing and payments. Thirty of the resolved complaints related to the quality of supply, 27 to the quality of work, and 20 to unsatisfactory communications. Nineteen were in relation to supply connections, 16 to damage to customers' equipment, and 11 concerned capital contributions.
Issuing his first report, Mr Denis Henderson said yesterday it "is set against a very busy year for ESB, which provided almost 50,000 new customer supply connections; operated 1.8 million meters; issued nine million bills and received about 12 million payments".
The compensation, paid in about 40 cases, ranged from £20 to about £2,000 in one instance where the complaint dealt with supply connection difficulties and communication problems.
ELCOM deals with complaints only after they have been through the internal ESB local and regional complaint process. If they remain unresolved then, they are referred to ELCOM.
The 31-page report outlines some of the complaints, including one from a customer who had received no response to phone calls and letters querying the amount of a two-monthly electricity bill. The ESB credited the account and a further payment was recommended to recognise the slow response.
Ongoing voltage problems over an extended time were also reported to the ESB. One customer complained that electrical appliances had been damaged as a result of the voltage difficulties. The ESB conceded that the supply had been below standard and there were "communication problems". An ex gratia payment was awarded in settlement.
In one case a customer complained because heavy-duty cables and brackets were fitted to the side of his house, without his agreement, by the ESB, to upgrade supply to a neighbour's house. The complaint was resolved when the ESB used more acceptable cables, and repaired some superficial structural damage.
One complaint, not upheld, dealt with a supply route which the customer felt would have resulted in a lower connection charge. The ESB said the alternative route suggested by the customer was not feasible for technical and safety reasons. ELCOM supported the ESB stance.
Mr Gerry Greene of ELCOM said that "there is a slight lack of awareness of the office". Leaflets had been supplied to all customers, but he said that they tended to discard any inserts with bills.
Mr Henderson made a number of recommendations in the report. The ESB, he said, should publish clearer information to customers about what they could do to protect electrical equipment from the effects of supply interruptions or variations.
The report also recommended that the ESB should use every available means of communication to provide customers with regular updates about when supplies would be restored after storms, such as the ones during Christmas last year.
