There is also the Map of Palermo among the water companies that would not have adapted to the provisions regarding the two-year prescription, as required by the provisions of Arera of 2020. For this reason, the Antitrust Authority has launched a series of investigations and if the violations were ascertained, even the former municipal company could see dozens of revenge actions arrive from consumer associations or individual citizens to obtain reimbursement of the sums unjustly paid to users.
The short-term prescription discipline was introduced into our system on 1 January 2020 by the 2018 Budget Law and also applies to water services. From that date therefore Consumers can object to the prescription for amounts referring to water consumption dating back more than two years from the date of issue of the bill. On the basis of reports from consumers and consumer associations and the information acquired by the operators themselves, it emerged that many companies active in the water services would not have applied the two-year prescription correctly. The reported behaviors concern the non-acceptance of the prescription requests on the credits present in the bill and also the omitted disclosure in the bills of the prescribable credits themselves. The ARERA Resolutions no. 547 of 2019 and no. 186 of 2020 in fact provide that the managers inform users of the presence in the bill of credits for which the prescription may be objected and send a specific form to allow them to exercise this right.
According to the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM), failure to accept the short-term prescription requests appears likely to unduly induce consumers to pay amounts, often large, relating to prescribed consumption and thus nullify the effects that the new discipline intends to counteract, or the late issuance of balance invoices relating to consumption dating back to more than two years. The absence of adequate information on the two-year limitation period can hinder the exercise of contractual prerogatives by inducing consumers to pay amounts for which, however, it would have been possible to object to the limitation. For these reasons, the Authority initiated five investigative proceedings for alleged unfair commercial practices against the companies SASISpA and EAS / Ente Acquedotti Siciliani in LCA, and the Municipalities of Ragusa, Cassino and Prata Sannita. Furthermore, the AGCM has decided to invite – through moral suasion – the managers ACEA ATO 2 SpA, Gori SpA, Alto Calore SpA, ABC Napoli as, Ruzzo Reti SpA, AMAP SpA and CAM-Consorzio Acquedottistico Marsicano to adopt initiatives aimed at removing the information omissions detected in order to provide users with the possibility to object to the prescription of such amounts or to request reimbursement if they have already been paid.
© All rights reserved
–
