ENERGEX

Overview

This page documents my interactions and correspondence with Energex following an electrical incident that affected my Queensland small business.

It records what occurred, what was said at the time of the incident, the subsequent compensation claim and appeal process, and the responses received. The purpose of this page is to provide a factual, chronological account of events, questions raised, and information provided or not provided.

No allegation of fault, negligence, or intent is made on this page. The focus is on process, consistency, and transparency.

What Happened

On 11 July 2025, an electrical incident occurred resulting in an unplanned outage affecting the supply to the business premises.

At the time of the incident, business equipment was operating normally, including a large-format DTF printer used in day-to-day production.

Energex subsequently de-energised the transformer supplying the area in order to undertake works. Power was later restored, and the transformer was subsequently replaced.

This page records the sequence of events and interactions only and does not seek to determine technical causation.

On-Site Discussion at the Time of the Incident

At the time of the incident, David was present and spoke directly with Energex field staff while works were being undertaken.

During this discussion, Energex staff advised that:

  • There had been a wildlife strike, and

  • An inspector was required to attend, as staff indicated that a phase-to-neutral situation had occurred.

These statements were made verbally on site while the transformer was de-energised and prior to restoration of supply.

David’s account of what was discussed on site has remained consistent throughout all subsequent correspondence.

Equipment Failure Identified

On 12 July 2025, following restoration of supply, the DTF printer was found to be non-operational.

Prior to the outage and de-energisation of the transformer, the equipment had been functioning correctly.

Independent technicians later inspected the equipment and reported extensive damage consistent with a surge or over-voltage event. Both technicians advised that repair was not viable and that full replacement was required.

These independent reports were obtained promptly and provided to Energex.

Compensation Claim Submitted

On 12 July 2025, a compensation claim was lodged with Energex in accordance with its published claims process (Claim reference: LC25THE0081385).

At the time of the incident, Energex field staff on site advised that if any equipment was found to be faulty following the outage, a compensation claim should be submitted as soon as possible.

While this comment was not given significant weight at the time and no assumptions were made based on it, it is noted as part of the contemporaneous interactions that occurred on site.

Following identification of the equipment failure and receipt of independent technician reports, a claim was submitted promptly and in good faith.

The claim included:

  • Details of the incident

  • Evidence of equipment damage

  • Purchase and value documentation

  • Independent technician reports

With the benefit of hindsight, this on-site recommendation is difficult to reconcile with the subsequent denial of the claim without supporting technical evidence.

Additional Information Provided

Between 14 and 16 July 2025, further information was provided to Energex, including:

  • Independent technician assessments

  • Invoices and purchase records

  • Clarifications requested during the assessment process

Claim Denial

On 23 July 2025, Energex advised that the compensation claim had been denied.

The denial attributed the incident to wildlife impact.
The explanation was provided at a high level and was not accompanied by technical reports, operational data, or primary evidence supporting the conclusions reached.

Appeal of the Decision

An appeal was lodged on 23 July 2025 requesting a review of the denial and clarification of the basis on which the decision had been made.

The appeal raised specific questions, including:

  • What evidence was relied upon to deny the claim

  • Whether technical or operational data had been reviewed

  • How alternative explanations were assessed

  • How low-voltage switching was managed during de-energisation and restoration

Appeal Outcome

On 8 August 2025, Energex advised that the appeal had been reviewed and that the original denial was upheld.

Correspondence indicates that the same Energex staff member was involved in both:

  • The original claim assessment, and

  • The appeal review

No explanation was provided as to how independence or separation of decision-making was ensured during the appeal process.

Low Voltage Switching and Over-Voltage Safeguards

During correspondence following the denial and appeal, specific questions were raised regarding how the low-voltage network was managed when the transformer was de-energised and re-energised.

These questions were raised because:

  • The equipment was operating at the time supply was interrupted, and

  • Independent technicians reported damage consistent with an over-voltage event, and

  • Energex staff had referenced a phase-to-neutral situation on site

Requests were made for information addressing:

  • How low-voltage switching was undertaken

  • What safeguards were in place to prevent over-voltage conditions

  • Whether any monitoring, measurements, or logs were reviewed

To date:

  • No explanation has been provided detailing how low-voltage switching was managed, and

  • No technical documentation or data has been supplied demonstrating that over-voltage conditions could not have occurred

This page does not assert that an over-voltage event did occur.
It records that questions regarding switching methodology and safeguards were asked and not addressed.

Consistency of Account

From the time of the incident through the claims, appeal, and complaint processes:

  • David’s account has remained consistent, and

  • The same factual points have been raised repeatedly in writing

These include:

  • Equipment was operating at the time of de-energisation

  • Energex de-energised the transformer

  • Wildlife strike and phase-to-neutral conditions were referenced by Energex staff on site

  • Concerns regarding low-voltage switching and over-voltage prevention were raised

Changes in Energex’s Account Over Time

In contrast, Energex’s written account has varied over time.

Initial Claim Denial

The initial denial attributed the incident to wildlife impact and rejected the claim without supplying technical evidence.

Appeal Decision

The appeal upheld the denial.
The framing and reasoning differed from the initial denial and did not directly address:

  • The on-site statements made by Energex staff, or

  • The specific low-voltage switching questions raised

No additional evidence was provided.

Account Provided to EWOQ

Subsequently, the account conveyed by Energex to the Energy and Water Ombudsman Queensland differed further in emphasis and description.

Correspondence from EWOQ repeatedly stated “Energex advised…”, reflecting Energex’s position at that stage.
These descriptions did not fully align with earlier written positions or with the on-site statements made at the time of the incident.

Timeline of Key Events

28 April 2025

Large-format DTF printer purchased for business use (replacement value approximately $33,800).

11 July 2025

Electrical incident occurred while equipment was operating.
Transformer de-energised by Energex and later replaced.

12 July 2025

Equipment failure identified.
Compensation claim lodged.

14–15 July 2025

Independent technicians assessed equipment and reported damage consistent with a surge or over-voltage event.

16 July 2025

Additional information and reports provided to Energex.

23 July 2025

Claim denied.
Appeal lodged the same day.

8 August 2025

Appeal denied and original decision upheld.

Questions Asked and Responses Recorded

How was low-voltage switching managed when the transformer was de-energised and re-energised?
No response provided.

What safeguards were in place to prevent over-voltage conditions?
No response provided.

What technical evidence supports the exclusion of an over-voltage event?
Assertions provided without supporting documentation.

How do on-site statements regarding phase-to-neutral conditions relate to later written accounts?
Not addressed.

How was independence ensured in the appeal process?
No response provided.

Unanswered or Inadequately Addressed Matters

As at the most recent correspondence:

  • No technical or operational documentation has been supplied

  • Key questions remain unanswered

  • Energex’s account has varied across different stages of the process

  • No reconciled explanation addressing these variations has been provided

Purpose of This Record

This page is provided:

  • To document interactions with Energex in a factual and transparent manner

  • To assist other customers in understanding the claims and appeal process

  • To support informed review by oversight bodies where relevant

Detailed correspondence and source material are available elsewhere on this site for independent review.

This page presents a factual record of correspondence and process only and does not assert cause, fault, or intent.