The Approved Solar Retailer program has now been replaced by the New Energy Tech Consumer Code (NETCC) program. A summary of the ASR program will be posted on these pages soon.
In an effort to help Approved Solar Retailers ensure that they meet their compliance obligations under the Solar Retailer Code of Conduct, the Clean Energy Council has produced a number of case studies on the commonly breached areas of the Code.
Clause 2.1.1(b): Providing false or misleading claims
The Code Administrator received a complaint from a consumer that their system was underperforming and the financial benefits the consumer was receiving from the system was significantly less than expected.
Clause 2.1.1(b) of the Code states that any advertisements, promotions, quotations and statements produced must be legal, truthful, and comply with all relevant legislation. Signatories must not provide any false or misleading claims relating to the company, product or services being offered including system performance, stocks and substitution of products.
It is important to note that this clause not only applies to advertisements, but it also applies to the information contained in solar proposals, contracts and quotes provided to consumers.
When comparing the system performance estimates from the consumer’s solar proposal with the system performance data, it was found that the system was significantly underperforming. The investigation uncovered that the system installed was incapable of performing at the standard outlined in the consumer’s solar proposal because the Retailer had used incorrect values resulting in overestimated system estimates, such as the system efficiency.
Furthermore, the financial benefits of installing a system outlined in the solar proposal (e.g., the projected monetary savings) were found to be significantly overvalued. The Code Administrator acknowledged that there was a disclaimer stating the amounts were “only estimates”, however the estimates provided were not reasonably achievable and found to be exaggerated. This amounted to misleading information.
The allegations were substantiated by the Code Administrator and the Retailer was required to complete an audit at their own cost. The audit involved reviewing their business procedures and implementing strategies/procedures to prevent non-compliance in future.
Please note the below learnings from this case:
Disclaimers included in the solar proposal declaring the information are only estimates will not discount the Retailer’s liability to provide accurate and reliable information to consumers.
Clause 2.1.6 (f) – Failure to provide a site-specific system design to the consumer at the point of contract
The Code Administrator received a complaint from a consumer stating that the retailer increased the cost after installation without their consent and that they never received any documentation related to the system (warranties, instructions, product specifications and maintenance manuals etc).
The Code Administrator requested the following items from the retailer:
The retailer claimed that due to the property location, an aerial image of the roof was unavailable to produce a system design on its computer software. The retailer acknowledged that a system design was not provided to the consumer. As a result, the Code Administrator alleged that a site-specific system design was not provided to the consumer at the point of contract in accordance with clause 2.1.6 (f) of the Code. Please note, there were multiple other allegations of non-compliance made in relation to this case.
Clause 2.1.6 (f) of the Code states that a sketch or diagram with measurements is acceptable to be included as part of the site-specific system design. This method should have been used given a roof image was not available.
The retailer was given 21 days to respond to the alleged breaches. The retailer did not dispute that a system design was not provided to the consumer at the point of contract. The retailer also acknowledged that an accredited designer could have been engaged to complete a system design manually with a sketch or diagram as prescribed in the Code.
The Code Administrator required the retailer to complete an audit at their own cost with an agreed action plan to prevent the breach reoccurring. The retailer was also required to provide the consumer with a compliant site-specific system design to ensure they had a baseline performance to compare actual performance against.
As a result of the audit, the retailer implemented new business procedures to prevent a future breach of clause 2.1.6 (f). This included:
Please note that in this case, the retailer breached multiple sections of the Code. They were therefore required to audit multiple other sections of their business as a result of this investigation.
Following receipt of the audit, the Code Administrator was satisfied that the retailer would comply with the Code should the new procedures be followed.
Please note the following learnings from this case:
Clause 2.2.3 - Failure to have variation to system design documented by consumer
The Code Administrator received a complaint from a consumer stating that the panels installed on their roof did not reflect what was agreed in their contract. The consumer claimed that the system size was significantly reduced.
Following receipt of the complaint, the Code Administrator contacted the retailer to get their side of the story. The Code Administrator asked for confirmation of what had been installed on the day of installation. This was verified with the STC Assignment form and the Certificate of Electrical Safety. The Code Administrator found that the system was reduced from a 9.9 kW system to an 8.14 kW system.
The retailer claimed that the system size was reduced due to limited roof space and after they received the consumer’s verbal consent. The retailer also confirmed that no new documentation was provided to the consumer until after installation was complete.
Contracted system
DESCRIPTION | QUANTITY |
---|---|
Mibet Racking | 27.00 |
Multi-Storey Charge | 1.00 |
Fronius Symo 8.2kW - SYMO 8.2-3-M | 1.00 |
Leapton 370W MONO - LP 158*158-M-66-MH-370W | 27.00 |
Installed system
DESCRIPTION | QUANTITY |
---|---|
Mibet Racking | 22.00 |
Multi-Storey Charge | 1.00 |
Fronius Symo 8.2kW - SYMO 8.2-3-M | 1.00 |
Leapton 370W MONO - LP 158*158-M-66-MH-370W | 22.00 |
The Code Administrator requested evidence that the variation was documented and signed off prior to installation. The retailer was unable to provide this evidence. As a result, the Code Administrator alleged that the retailer had breached section 2.2.3 of the Code.
The retailer was provided with 21 days to respond to the alleged breaches. The retailer did not dispute that they had breached section 2.2.3 of the Code by failing to have the system design documented and signed off prior to installation.
The Code Administrator sent a Letter of Outcome to the retailer that detailed the sanctions applied in this case. One Major breach of the Code of Conduct was substantiated, and the retailer was required to complete an audit at their own cost with an agreed action plan to prevent the issue from re-occurring. The retailer was also requested to provide the consumer with an updated site-specific system design. The new system design was crucial to allow the consumer to know what the new estimated output of the system would be. A consumer needs to be able to compare the estimated performance against the actual performance of the system.
As a result of the audit, the retailer implemented new business procedures to avoid a future breach of clause 2.2.3 of the Code. This included:
Following the receipt of the audit, the Code Administrator was satisfied that the retailer would comply with the Code should the new procedures be followed.
It is important to note the following learnings from this case:
Clause 2.2.3 – Failure to inform a consumer of a zero-export limit
The Code Administrator received a complaint from a consumer stating that they had only been informed of a zero-export limit after installation. The consumer claimed that the potential savings detailed on the contract were not being realised.
Following receipt of the complaint, the Code Administrator contacted the retailer to get their side of the story. The Code Administrator asked for the following items:
The Retailer responded with these items as follows.
Clause 2.2.3 of the Code states that any variation to the system design must be documented and signed off prior to installation. The initial design provided with the contract gave financial forecasts and estimated savings based on no export limit. The Code Administrator found that a significant variation to the system design occurred (no export limit to zero-export limit) but was not documented and signed off prior to installation.
The Code Administrator requested evidence that the variation was documented and signed off prior to installation. The retailer was unable to provide this evidence. As a result, the Code Administrator alleged that the retailer had breached section 2.2.3 of the Code for not having a significant variation to the system design documented and signed off prior to installation.
The retailer was provided 21 days to respond to the alleged breaches. The retailer did not dispute that they had breached section 2.2.3 of the Code by failing to have the zero-export limit documented and signed off prior to installation.
The retailer implemented new business procedures as a result of this case. This included:
It is important to note the following learnings from this case:
Clause 2.2.4(c): Not providing the consumer a full refund for estimated installation completion delays
The Code Administrator received multiple complaints within the space of 3 months, whereby consumers alleged extensive delays in the completion of their solar PV system installations. 3 consumers advised they had requested a refund, which the Retailer had agreed to, but they had not received any refunds back from the Retailer.
Clause 2.2.4(c) of the Code states that Signatories must provide the consumer with a full refund upon request when the estimated delivery timeframe for installation completion that was agreed upon at the point of contract is not honoured, for reasons reasonably within the Signatory’s control, and the consumer does not consent to a revised time frame.
The allegations were substantiated by the Code Administrator, and it soon became clear that it was a systemic issue within the company. Due to the substantial noncompliance with the Code, the Retailer was removed as an Approved Solar Retailer of the Clean Energy Council.
Please note the below learnings from this case:
Clause 2.4.2 & 2.4.5 - Failing to be responsive to, and deal appropriately with the consumer at all times
The Code Administrator received a complaint from a consumer stating that their system was producing significantly less than expected and that their system was wrongly installed in a heavily shaded area.
The consumer emailed the Retailer with their complaint on 30 April 2021. On 29 June 2021, the consumer sent a follow-up email to the Retailer requesting an update on the matter, more than eight weeks after the original complaint. A further email was sent on 14 July 2021 regarding the lack of response from the Retailer. The Retailer failed to provide an update to the consumer until 27 September 2021, five months after the complaint was initially raised. Eventually, the matter was resolved with the consumer in October 2021, however the Retailer failed to keep the consumer updated and did not respond to the consumer’s complaints in a timely manner until the CEC commenced an investigation.
Clause 2.4.2 of the Code states that Signatories must be responsive to, and deal appropriately with the consumer at all times. The Code Administrator alleged that the Retailer failed to comply with this clause (among multiple other allegations) by failing to respond to the consumer’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe or keep them updated accordingly.
The Code Administrator also alleged a breach of clause 2.4.5 of the Code. Clause 2.4.5 of the Code states that Signatories must have an appropriate internal complaint handling procedure in which the Retailer:
The allegations were substantiated by the Code Administrator and the Retailer was required to complete an audit at their own cost. The audit involved reviewing their business procedures and implementing strategies/procedures to prevent non-compliance in future.
The Retailer found the below when completing the audit:
The Retailer implemented the below strategies as a result of the audit:
Following receipt of the audit results, the Code Administrator closed this case.
Please note the below learnings from this case: