Hi Meltam
I’m sorry to hear of the problems you have had with your installation. The officer managing our complaint at Fair Trading told me this week that Flextronics is still registered as a legal entity in NSW and therefore in the jurisdiction of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I’m wondering whether you asked SSROC or your Council to intervene? I’m thinking of appealing to them. Stories like ours are not a good look for them. Energy Matters certainly used consumer trust in the Councils as a selling point. They said explicitly that there was less risk in having solar PV installed through the Councils’ scheme.
Our system is working fine and saving us money but its annual output is simply nowhere near the performance guarantee.
4 Likes
Would it be possible to seek reimbursement/payment from whomever covered their Professional Liability/Indemnity Insurance (PLI) while they operated in Australia? (If they had any that is)
As the poor/substandard install occurred while they operated here the Insurance Company would have been and should still be liable for claims made for that period. I believe, but I am not sure, in most States to carry out this type of business and to be registered by the State/Territory Building Authority they must prove they have/had PLI coverage while they operate/d here. Some examples of advice about this type of cover:
https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/building/builder-renewals-requirements/building-insurance-requirements
2 Likes
I’m not sure if I’m repeating some of what has been said already.
The insurer may suggest that the policy excludes cover for misrepresentation by the supplier, of the performance of the product supplied. There are typically strict conditions on what is covered by PL and PI insurance policies. Necessary to ensure the policy costs are not prohibitive.
Insurance is intended to cover only specified failures outside of the control of the insured business. In the circumstances described, Flextronics it might be suggested were in control of the component selection and system design and installation. No basis for claims.
That’s separate to whether Fkextronics were honest or competent in their representations to their customers.
Potentially misleading conduct might be a better option under consumer law. That would still depend on a professional expert opinion to establish the systems supplied were not capable of achieving the stated performance in accordance with the conditions of purchase. Plus an on-site test/inspection to verify the details and performance of suspect systems. It looks a lot like the VW emissions scandal where what customers were sold was not what they were offered. Hence it is likely a similar process is required leading to a direction for remedy. But with none to foot the bill?
Another failure for the CEC approval process. Perhaps the CEC should be sued assuming Flextronics was a member?
It’s difficult to comment on the relationship between Flextronics and the building regulations in each state. Electrical work is typically included under separate legislation. Most often solar companies subcontract out the installs to licensed contractors, separate to the design and component supply.
1 Like
My comments were in relation to @meltam’s problem of a sub-standard install such that it caused “a large amount of water to leak into our bedroom ceiling causing significant damage and black mold”. This is something that may be covered under PLI coverage such as the QBCC site has stated “Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance provides financial protection and may cover the costs if a contractor has caused building errors or omissions”. PLI can actually cover for failures that are within the control of the contractor. If the installers were Electricians or were working under a Electrical contractor authority then any building work they did eg panel installs would not require a QBCC licence if they were
"
- an employee of a licensee where your employer holds the correct QBCC licence to cover the work you are doing. However, as an employee, you cannot carry out occupational building work or carry out work as a site supervisor unless you hold the appropriate licence
- a sub-trade contractor for a licensed trade contractor where the licensed trade contractor holds the correct QBCC licence to cover the work you are doing
- an unlicensed person working in partnership with a licensee where the licensed partner holds the correct QBCC licence for the work you are doing. However, as an unlicensed partner, you cannot offer to tender or enter into a contract to carry out building work and you must meet QBCC’s fitness and propriety conditions
…//…
- an electrician carrying out electrical work (an electrician cannot carry out building work without a QBCC licence) – contact the Electrical Safety Office in Workplace Health & Safety"
& for their Electrcial Licence they are also required to hold Insurance that covers sub-standard work:
"
Insurance requirements
You must hold an insurance policy that meets the requirements of Section 51 of the ES Regulation.
The policy must be issued in the legal name of the business applying for the licence, and must include public and products liability with:
- a limit of indemnity of at least $5,000,000, and
- consumer protection insurance of at least $50,000.
The policy must include all of the following:
- liability arising from testing and certification of work in accordance with the ES Regulation
- injury or damage arising from faulty design work performed by you including where you did not charge a specific fee for such design work
- injury or damage arising from incorrect advice including where you did not charge a specific fee for such advice
- goods in your care, custody or control."
As for the Flextronic’s ‘guarantee’ of paying some top-up/fee if the product did not meet some level of performance, maybe that’s why they left the marketplace before they lost all their profits in payments to consumers who had under-performance of their systems…take the money and run type business perhaps?? Not saying they are this type of business but inferences can be made from behaviours.
4 Likes
Ok, understood.
Is there any evidence the work was carried out by a QBCC licensed contractor?
I asked at the time for both solar PV systems we had installed about the roofing sealing at the electrical penetrations and solar racking mountings. Although technically plumbing work the work was done by Electricians and TA’s working as Electrical Contractors.
There may be scope for a claim by @meltam if the components used were not designed for the purpose or incorrectly installed. There should be a record from the original install of which business and contractors license was used for the install. From that detail once discovered it is possible to check if they are also covered by the QBCC legislation. It is unlikely as follows.
https://www.qbcc.qld.gov.au/electrical-work
P.S.
I suspect Discourse shows part reply’s to a topic while first edits are in progress. Hence we cross over before each reply is complete, having seen one portion only? Noted the more detailed discussion of the electrical licensing and insurance requirements per @grahroll
2 Likes
Key questions. Re @meltam circumstances and work carried out as an add on to an existing building.
Is any aspect of a PV install considered building work as distinct from electrical work?
Which item of legislation determines the responsibility for the design of a solar PV system and it’s installation?
Irrespective of what we interpret as being the legislated requirements, what are the exact details of the insurance policies that were in place at the time of the installation for System Supplier/Designer and installer? What seems logical and reasonable might not exist!
Notes:
It may be that Flextronics has never held a QBCC license? That is irrespective of what the legislation at least in Qld might suggest is required.
Unless there is a determination that some aspects of the PV install was building construction work as distinct from electrical work, the legislation does not require electrical contractors to be registered by the QBCC. There is no legislative provision for electrical work to be covered by the QBCC. Only for an electrical contractor if they also carry out building work?
The CEC provides two different types of accreditation. One for an Installer and another for the design.
One of our PV installers indicated that they were permitted under their electrical license to secure the rooftop panel racking through existing fixing screw holes. This was achieved by removing the existing screws and installing bracket kits with longer screws. The brackets in the racking kits were supplied by a third party (proprietary fittings) and selected as off the shelf fit for purpose hardware intended for that application. Any cable penetrations again used proprietary fittings designed for that purpose.
Perhaps this needs some further clarification by the QBCC, given the type of failure noted by @meltam.
It would seem a long path, especially for a failure going back 8 years.
1 Like
In all likelyhood, all that is left is a ‘shelf’ company. In which case even if you win. it will be a pyrrhic victory. There will not be any way to recover costs or enforce any determinations.
In my case, this is what happened. To further complicate matters, the electrician who signed off on the Certificate of Testing & Compliance was CEC certified and an employee of Energy Matters/Flextronics. He has disappeared, and no longer a licenced electician or listed by CEC. In fact seems to have completely gone ‘dark’.
The work was all done through Energy Matters/Flextronics. And apparently yes they did use the wrong components. But seeing as they were licenced electricians rather than builders as @grahroll says, no insurance cover from QBCC. CEC is as useful as a bucket of sand in the desert. And as far as the legal advice I received, there is no cover from anyone else for that matter.
The real issue here is that I would not be alone in this situation. There must be many more consumers shafted like this around Australia. All without any recourse because of the gaps in the consumer protections you have all pointed out.
4 Likes
As was posted previously in other topics, once a tradie is licensed for almost anything, nobody wants to know about them so long as they pay their annual renewal fees.
But aren’t these provided by government making it illegal to have [eg] electrical work done by other than a licensed electrician, one that can always be trusted [to have paid the renewal]?
3 Likes
It depends the licence work was undertaken or contractor arrangements the work was done under.
If Energy Matters was the principal/main/engaged contractor, it is possibly ultimately responsible for all work underaken in relation to the installation. The way to think of this is say one builds a house…after 3 months tiles start coming off the wall in the shower recess. One would have a dispute the builder and not the tiler which subcontracted to the builder to do the work. It is then the builder’s responsibility to rectify and if necessary, make a claim against the subcontractor.
If Energy Matters was onIy the retailer and offered to arrange a installation contractor on behalf of the customer…it could be that the installer is then responsible for any defects associated with its works. Energy Matters may not seen as the principal contractor in such circumstances (a bit like a electrical store offering to arrange a contractor to install an oven on hehalf of a customer).
It would be interesting to know the contractual arrangements between Energy Matters and the customer, and Energy Matters and those who carried out the installation. This might give a better indication of where responsibilities lie.
3 Likes
The contract was with EM/Flex to install. Warranty was part of the contract.
Totally unaware of what the arrangements between EM/Flex with the subby was. Don’t even know if it was a once off, or they were regulars for EM/Flex.
3 Likes
Still if a Qld firm and done as an Electrical work it should be covered by the mandatory PLI insurance as per Section 51 of the ES Regulation and this cover is supposed to cover:
- liability arising from testing and certification of work in accordance with the ES Regulation
- injury or damage arising from faulty design work performed by you including where you did not charge a specific fee for such design work
So both the faulty certification and the faulty install. Even if the tradesperson or company is no longer in business the Insurance Company that covered them for the period when they installed the panels can be tackled for the cost. Something like 3rd party insurance on a car…if you have an accident while the car was properly insured, it is covered regardless if the car becomes uninsured after the accident. It would just be the time that has passed may be out of bounds for coverage. But some cover for 7 years after the incidents.
3 Likes
I found this site very helpful in my search for getting solar (navigating the quagmire of companies etc):
I forget where … but I was told to also always ask to be quoted the minimum predicted estimates along with the maximum.
Just in case anyone is wondering about why Gordon and Mark_M were asking their questions
Over Voltage or Solar Saturation (i.e. when your neighbourhood starts growing solar panels on trees 
):
3 Likes
Solarquotes has been referenced numerous times on the forum and Finn has acted as a consultant to Choice. A very respected voice.
You might be interested in this topic then.
and possibly this
5 Likes
Thanks and yes I have definitely been following said rabbit, always handy having extra cross references!
4 Likes
Thanks for the suggestion. I had a look back through the purchase agreement and certification papers and can not find anything about insurance. Alas, there is no-one to ask either as the installation firm and the CEC authorised electrician installer who certified have disappeared.
6 Likes
I’m fairly certain Energy Matters had the relevant insurance, at least when they were Energy Matters, the Australian company. Once the Americans and Indians took over, I don’t know, but I would assume so.
In any case, you should not be the one chasing their insurance company, they should be handing your case to the insurer to settle!
5 Likes
I agree, but they handed it to a firm of lawyers after saying it would be fixed 
3 Likes
