//
[2025] ACAT 82
General information, not legal advice.
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2025-11-14
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (www.acat.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
EW 2025/0479 v ICON WATER LIMITED ACN 069 381 960 (Energy and Water) [2025] ACAT 82 GEN 18/2025 Catchwords: ENERGY AND WATER – water utility - residential customer - complaint that utility did not reimburse higher-than-usual water consumption charges due to undetected water leak – leak on customer side of the connection point – no contravention of customer contract – no contravention of industry code – no other applicable ground under Part 12 of Utilities Act - application dismissed
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, ss 9, Part 4, 39 Utilities Act 2000, ss 25, 56, 59, 172, 176
Subordinate Legislation cited: Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2020 Utilities (Technical Regulation) (Water and Sewerage Code) Approval 2024, Sch 1 Utilities (Technical Regulation) (Water and Sewerage Network Boundary Code) Approval 2018
Tribunal: Senior Member E Morrison
Date of Orders: 22 August 2025 Date of Reasons for Decision: 17 October 2025 Date of Publication: 14 November 2025 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) GEN 18/2025
BETWEEN: EW 2025/0479 Applicant
AND: ICON WATER LIMITED ACN 069 381 960 Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member E Morrison
DATE: 22 August 2025
ORDER
(a) The applicant is to be known as “EW 2025/0479”; (b) There is to be no public access to the file or audio for this proceeding. (c) Publication or disclosure of the applicant’s name or other information that may identify him in relation to these proceedings is prohibited, except as reasonably necessary to take procedural or other action in relation to these proceedings.
……………………………….. Senior Member E Morrison REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction 1. The applicant is a residential customer of the respondent (Icon Water).
Between July 2023 and August 2024, the applicant’s water bills were higher than usual. He later discovered this was due to leaking irrigation pipes in his front yard.
The applicant’s complaint is that Icon Water did not adjust his account in accordance with its ‘Residential Undetected Leak Policy’ (Undetected Leak Policy), and did not reimburse his cost of engaging a handyman to fix the leak.
I dismissed the application after an interlocutory hearing. These are my reasons for that decision.
Background
The applicant owns and lives in a free-standing home with a front garden.
On 11 July 2024, the applicant lodged an online ‘Undetected Leak Application’ with Icon Water. The application stated that: From July 2023 quarter, we were getting excessive water bills. Accordingly I ringed Icon Water and they came for an inspection and found out that just outer boundary has a damp area under big plants and bush which has a leak. The leaked water was going through water meter hold towards the slope of main load as such we couldn’t see it. Accordingly, I was told to fix the leak. One of the handyman who does my other jobs fixed the leak (…) I am happy to pay the water we used but not the drained water that I had no control.
The applicant sought payment of $1,480, being a reimbursement of $1,280 for water consumption charges and $200 for handyman costs.
On 15 July 2023, Icon Water emailed the applicant to advise that his claim did not fall within the criteria for its Undetected Leak Policy. Icon Water offered to reassess the application if the applicant or his plumber provided additional information that addressed the relevant criteria.
On 17 July 2024, the applicant made a phone complaint to Icon Water about the refusal. Icon Water acknowledged the complaint then sent a formal reply on 6 August 2024.
On 30 August 2024, the applicant submitted a second online ‘Undetected Leak Application’. The application included a statement from the handyman who repaired the leak and said: … The leak was detected under a big tree on the outer corner of our property hidden under big roots. There was a submerged sprinkler irrigation system underneath set for irrigating plants and lawn by earlier owner and we didn't know it. That irrigation pipes were ruptured due to the pressure of the randomly growing roots. After this cracking of the water pipes, we cut down the big tree.
On 6 September 2024, Icon Water emailed the applicant advising his application still did not meet the criteria in its policy.
On 12 September 2024, the applicant asked Icon Water to reassess his application. He was asked to provide information about extenuating circumstances.
On 30 September 2024, the applicant provided additional information via email.
On 16 October 2024, Icon Water advised the applicant that his application had been reassessed and he was still ineligible for an adjustment.
On 31 December 2024, the applicant emailed Icon Water asking again for a reimbursement. Icon Water acknowledged the email and, on 7 January 2025, advised it had further reviewed the application and confirmed the applicant was ineligible for an adjustment.
On 23 May 2025, the applicant lodged a complaint with the tribunal in its energy and water jurisdiction. The tribunal’s registry referred the applicant to an information sheet on the ACAT website about free legal advice providers and encouraged the applicant to seek assistance. Both parties lodged material to support their respective positions.
On 22 July 2025, the applicant advised the tribunal’s registry that he had received assistance from CARE Financial and provided a licensed plumber certificate.
On 29 July 2025, Icon Water lodged an interim application, seeking an order to dismiss the complaint on the basis that: … the ACAT does not have jurisdiction to direct Icon Water to consider applications for the Undetected Leak Adjustment, as this is a good will offering over and about our legislative obligations as a Utility. The customer has provided evidence to the ACAT that the leak was internal and beyond the connection point and part of the owner’s hydraulic service and contributed to the high consumption. The characteristics of the leak doesn’t meet the Undetected Leak criteria s it was from an Irrigation/Sprinkler System and it was Visible.
On 21 August 2025, I conducted an interlocutory hearing on the interim application. After hearing from the parties and considering their material, I granted the interim application and dismissed the complaint.
Undetected Leak Policy 1
Icon Water’s Undetected Leak Policy is published on its website. The policy contains eligibility criteria and a link to the online application form.
Under the policy, a residential customer may be eligible for a one-off rebate towards their water consumption charges if they experience an ‘undetected water leak’ at their property.
The application form contains the following statement: This rebate is a customer relations gesture and provides support above Icon Water’s Customer Contract obligations.
To be eligible for a rebate, a customer must, among other things: (a) demonstrate there were no visible signs of water loss and the leak could not have been reasonably detected before the water bill was issued; (b) provide written confirmation by a licensed plumber of the cause of the leak, that it was hidden from view and has been fixed; (c) demonstrate the leak is not due to faulty plumbing fixtures, such as a tap, leaking shower, toilet cistern, hot water system or sprinkler system; and (d) not have received a previous undetected leak adjustment.
1 https://www.iconwater.com.au/my-home/leaks/leak-allowance Legislative framework – complaints to ACAT
The tribunal is established by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act). The tribunal can only exercise the powers conferred on it by legislation. Section 9 of the ACAT Act provides: 9 Applications under authorising laws A person may apply to the tribunal if an authorising law provides that the application may be made.
The Utilities Act 2000 (Utilities Act) regulates the provision of utility services in the ACT. Those services include electricity, natural gas, water and sewerage.
Part 12 of the Utilities Act establishes a framework for making a complaint or application to the tribunal about a utility service. Section 172 contains a table that lists the categories of complaints that can be made to the tribunal, and who can make them, as follows:
Table 172 ACAT applications column 1 column 2 column 3 item complainant complaint 1 consumer affected by contravention of customer contract, or customer retail contravention contract or customer connection contract made under the National Energy Retail Law (ACT), by a utility 2 consumer affected by contravention of an industry code dealing with utility contravention service standards by a utility 3 consumer a utility fails to provide a utility service to consumer or withdraws a utility service from consumer, and failure or withdrawal causes substantial hardship, or is likely to cause substantial hardship, to consumer 4 person affected by contravention of s 51 (Protection of personal contravention information) by a utility 5 person affected by contravention by a utility or a regulated utility of an contravention obligation in relation to its network operations under this Act or the Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014 6 person affected by act act or omission of an authorised person for a utility or or omission regulated utility in relation to its network operations under this Act or the Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014 7 person on whom capital contribution charge imposed under s 101 charge imposed
Where a complaint does not fall within one of those categories, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Utilities Act to determine it and may instead 2 dismiss the complaint under section 176(1)(a).
The question to be determined at the interlocutory hearing was whether the applicant’s complaint fell within one of the categories under section 172.
Undetected Leak Policy does not form part of the customer contract (section 172, item 1)
Icon Water supplies water to the applicant under its Water Services and Sewerage Services Connection and Supply Standard Customer Contract (the contract).
The contract provides that: (a) The boundary or ‘connection point’ between a customer’s equipment and 3 Icon Water’s network is as defined in the relevant industry code. (In this case, the connection point was the first outlet from the water meter on the applicant’s property). (b) Icon Water is responsible for equipment on its side of the connection point (clause 2.14). (c) The customer is responsible for equipment on its side of the connection point (clause 2.14), which includes operating and maintaining that equipment (clause 2.11). (d) Icon Water is entitled to charge the customer for water consumption at the rates set out in its schedule of charges (clause 6.1). The customer must pay for the provision of water to its premises (clause 6.2).
2 The tribunal may have jurisdiction under another authorising law, but the complainant would need to make an application under that law. For example, where the complainant alleges a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law, they would need to lodge a civil dispute application because this falls within the tribunal’s civil jurisdiction under Part 4 of the ACAT Act 3 At the time of the complaint, the ‘connection point’ was defined in the Water and Sewerage Network Boundary Code contained in the Utilities (Technical Regulation) (Water and Sewerage Network Boundary Code) Approval 2018. The ‘connection point’ is now defined in the Water and Sewerage Technical Code provided at Schedule 1 to the Utilities (Technical Regulation) (Water and Sewerage Code) Approval 2024 (e) If Icon Water discovers it has overcharged a customer, it will credit the overcharged amount to the account (clause 6.13). (f) Where a customer withholds payment due to a disputed amount, Icon Water can charge interest on the unpaid amount if it determines the amount was correctly charged (clause 6.15(a)).
Clause 5.16 deals with undetected leaks, as follows: If you experience a significant increase in water consumption and a higher than normal water account, you may have an undetected leak on your premises. If the undetected leak is caused by damage to your equipment, you are responsible for paying the water charges incurred due to the undetected leak.
‘Equipment’ is defined to include: water pipes and sewerage pipes and other water and sewerage 4 infrastructure and equipment.
The Undetected Leak Policy is not incorporated into the contract. A customer who experiences a higher-than-usual bill due to water leaking from damaged pipes on their side of the water meter must still pay for their water consumption. Any decision by Icon Water about whether to grant a rebate in a particular case is not governed by the contract.
In this case, the applicant agreed the leak was caused his damaged irrigation pipes and so he is contractually obliged to pay for the related charges. Icon Water did not contravene the contract by refusing to adjust his account.
No other contravention of the customer contract (section 172, item 1)
Icon Water provided copies of the applicant’s water bills and a document titled Meter Consumption and Reading History. These documents showed that the water consumption charges were based on actual meter readings, not estimates.
At the hearing, the applicant did not suggest the metering equipment was defective, that the actual readings relied upon by Icon Water were incorrect, or that Icon Water had contravened the contract in some other way.
4 Contract, Schedule 2
No contravention of an applicable industry code (section 172, item 2)
The second category of complaint under section 172 is where a customer alleges the utility has contravened an industry code.
Part 4 of the Utilities Act deals with industry codes. In this case, the relevant industry code was the Consumer Protection Code 2020 (Consumer Protection Code).
The Consumer Protection Code is contained in the Utilities (Consumer Protection 5 Code) Determination 2020 , which is made under section 59 of the Utilities Act.
Icon Water is required to comply with the Consumer Protection Code as a condition of its licence, in accordance with sections 25 and 56 of the Utilities Act.
The Consumer Protection Code establishes customer rights in relation to the supply of utility services, including information requirements, billing, complaint 6 handling and guaranteed service levels.
Importantly, the Consumer Protection Code does not require Icon Water to apply any policy about undetected leaks, or to adjust a customer’s account unless an error or overcharging is detected.
As mentioned, the applicant agreed that his higher bills were due to the leaking irrigation system and not, for example due to a problem with the meter or Icon Water’s billing practices.
Also, there was no suggestion or evidence that Icon Water may have contravened its complaint handling obligations under the Consumer Protection Code. Instead, Icon Water’s timeline, copies of correspondence, service call and work activity notes suggest that Icon Water had reviewed the bill as required (section 13.8) and complied with its complaint handling procedures (sections 6.1 to 6.4) including
5 DI2020-6 6 Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2020, s 5 in relation to information disclosure, response timeframes, internal escalation and referral to the tribunal.
No other ground available under section 172
The applicant’s complaint did not concern hardship assistance (section 172, item 3), a privacy breach (section 172, item 4), network operations (section 172, items 5 and 6) or a capital contribution charge (section 172, item 7).
On that basis, I determined that Part 12 of the Utilities Act did not apply to the matter complained of and dismissed the application under section 176(1)(a).
Conclusion and final comments
Icon Water is not required to apply the Undetected Leak Policy under its customer contract or an industry code.
A decision by Icon Water to grant or refuse a rebate under the Undetected Leak Policy is not, on its own, a ground to make a complaint to the tribunal under section 172 of the Utilities Act.
In this case, even if Icon Water was required to apply the Undetected Leak Policy as a matter of law, it seems the applicant would not have been entitled to a rebate in any event because his higher water consumption was due to a faulty irrigation system which did not meet the published eligibility criteria.
……………………………….. Senior Member E Morrison Date(s) of hearing: 22 August 2025 Applicant: Self-represented, in person Respondent: K Shurmer, in-house legal counsel, in person
EW 2025/0479
ICON WATER LIMITED ACN 069 381 960