NOS News•
Energy company Vattenfall should not have implemented an additional tariff change at a customer on 1 April last year. The subdistrict court in Amsterdam has that decided last week, the ruling was published today. It is unclear to what extent this statement has broader implications. Vattenfall itself emphasizes that the ruling is about an individual case.
The customer in question has had a variable contract with Vattenfall for many years, which is adjusted twice a year to market prices. On March 22 last year, the customer was told that an additional increase was coming. Due to the war in Ukraine, Vattenfall was forced to implement this, according to the company. That happened ten days before the increase was to take effect.
The customer says on January 1, 2022, when prices were already significantly increased, that he consulted Vattenfall’s site about when more increases could be expected. There the customer read that this happens twice a year, after which she maintained her contract. Then the person was surprised by the interim increase.
Vattenfall says the change policy is not unfair because the customer knew the rates were flexible. The company also states that the customer had enough time to cancel the contract. Vattenfall also emphasizes that the war in Ukraine made it impossible to wait 30 days before implementing the change.
Defined too broadly
The court rules that Vattenfall’s options to implement price changes are “defined far too broadly”. In addition, in the eyes of the court, on the basis of Vattenfall’s general terms and conditions, the consumer is not sufficiently enabled to estimate the economic consequences.
According to the court, the time between the announcement of the extra price increase and the moment it took effect was too short “in view of the conditions on the energy market at the time”. In addition, the court agrees with the customer’s argument that there is an unfair commercial practice because the website states that the rates for a variable contract change twice a year.
Vattenfall does not agree with the verdict, a spokesman said. The company is considering an appeal. Vattenfall also states that this ruling only relates to this specific customer.
With regard to the unfair commercial practice, the energy company states that the text was only intended to explain the difference between a variable and permanent contract and that the general terms and conditions were correct.
