The customer was forced to pay: despite not having any contracts, the electricity supplier demanded payment of a 3-year debt | Business

Three years ago, during the first phase of electricity market liberalization in the spring of 2021, thousands of residents chose an independent electricity supplier.

However 15 minutes then he wrote that reverse situations also happened – some users found out that the company had chosen them and added them to its customers.

This is what happened to Daina, who called the intermediary to get more information and without even suspecting it, found herself among Enefit’s customers. Dinei testified that she was simply asking for information and there was no talk of a contract being signed – moreover, she neither saw nor signed the contract.

After starting to get interested 15 minutes to reporters, Enefit apologized to the woman for the misunderstanding, and VERT explained that verbal contracts over the phone are not valid.

However, three years later, Dainė learned that this story did not end in 2021. The woman received several calls from Enefit consultants urging her to pay off a supposed €59 debt, and recently received a letter from a debt collection company that added another €25 for their services.

“I tried to call Enefit and explain the situation, that I was never their client by choice, that they don’t have any of my signatures – it doesn’t work. I tried to write. And today I received another call where they explained to me that “they can’t do anything”. I have to pay and that’s it. It seems absurd to me,” su complained again 15 minutes after contacting Dainė.

I got another call today where they explained that “there is nothing they can do”. I have to pay and that’s it.

Currently, the woman does not have loans, but she is worried that if she needs to borrow, she would not feel the weight of this nonexistent debt. Indebtedness usually lowers a person’s credit rating, which determines whether, for example, banks will grant a loan, or whether telecommunications companies will grant a phone on installments.

“Enefit” admitted the mistake, but the client assures that she did not receive the information

Ieva Krikštopaitytė is the marketing and communication manager of the independent electricity supplier Enefit 15 minutes admitted that there was an error and assured that it has already been fixed: “Although the situation has already been resolved, we have to admit that there was a technical error in this case, for which we regret.”

According to her, the debt has already been collected from the debt collection company, and the client was informed that neither Enefit nor the debt collection company has any claims against her.

“Once again, we sincerely apologize for this unpleasant situation and assure that we have taken additional measures to avoid such technical errors in the future”, emphasized I. Krikštopaitytė.

The representative of “Enefit” explained that in 2021, when the quarantine was announced throughout Lithuania, for the convenience of customers, contracts were concluded only over the phone, after mandatory identification of customers and receiving their verbal confirmation and consent.

“At that time, it was common practice in other companies as well. Nevertheless, after assessing the situation at that time, it was decided to terminate the contract with the client and cancel the bills for one month’s consumption. Unfortunately, after some time the invoices were created by mistake – it was a technical error in our system. Since it was not possible to find out the circumstances and cancel these accounts in time, the debt created by mistake was transferred to the debt collection company”, commented I. Krikštopaitytė.

However, although the company claimed to have apologized to the client, Dainė 15 minutes said on Friday that she had not received any information about the canceled debt – no one from Enefit or the debt collection company had contacted her.

In the meantime, VERT advised the consumer who is not satisfied with the answer received from the supplier, to contact the institution, which will examine the dispute.