Expensive energy contracts: exploiting customer uncertainty

On the phone, they pretend to be an employee of the energy supplier and trick customers into expensive contracts. According to consumer advocates, the number of foisted contracts increased significantly. Report Mainz shows how the scam works.

For Ludwig Krompass from Burgkirchen an der Alz in Bavaria, it all starts with a phone call. The caller pretended to be his energy supplier and wanted to offer him a cheaper rate, he says in an interview Report Mainz. But after a few weeks, he received a letter of resignation from his energy supplier. “We were really flabbergasted. We didn’t want to quit, we never had that in mind.” Around the same time as the letter of termination came a new contract from another provider. The pensioner is stunned. “We didn’t sign anything,” he says. “We didn’t even say we wanted to do it.” What happened to him is not an isolated case.

Complaints are piling up nationwide

Report Mainz has spoken to numerous victims nationwide. They tell of unwanted cancellations, unconfirmed contracts, extreme price increases and deliberate deception. The consumer center Federal Association writes on request that the number of complaints about foisted contracts has almost tripled this year.

As a result of the “recent sharp rise in energy prices”, the Federal Network Agency has also recorded a disproportionate increase in complaints about unauthorized advertising calls about energy supply products. By the end of August, she had received around 10,000 written complaints on this alone.

Khaled Touzri knows this scam. Until the end of last year, he worked for an energy supplier who used dubious means to foist energy contracts on unsuspecting customers. “At some point I thought to myself, it can’t go on like this anymore,” says the insider. Now, for a fee, the 40-year-old is helping those affected to get out of such contracts. He has countless documents, contracts from thousands of customers.

Energy contracts should no longer be concluded so easily over the phone. Because since July 27, 2021, the text form applies to telephone contracts. This provides for the amendment of the Energy Industry Act. However, as confirmation of the contract, the name and a simple “yes” as a text are sufficient – for example via SMS. Touzri considers this regulation far too lax.

The law is shamelessly circumvented

A recording of a call that Report Mainz was leaked makes it clear how shamelessly some intermediaries of energy supply contracts exploit this regulation. In the half-hour recording, you can hear how the customer makes it clear several times that he does not want to sign a contract. And how he is unknowingly pushed into signing a contract through deceptive methods.

Attorney Marc Nörig criticizes the Energy Industry Act in an interview with Report Mainz. He handles several such cases in court. “I find it bold how these energy companies proceed. It should be prevented that the customer is not in any way taken by surprise during the telephone call, but can think about whether he actually wants to conclude this contract,” says Nörig.

Felix Methmann from the Federal Association of Consumers sees it similarly: “It is important that the problems are tightened up now. And they consist in the fact that many consumers have a contract that they don’t want. It must not be possible be able to conclude contracts via SMS.”

Stronger sanctions demanded

Report Mainz also spoke to those affected by foisted energy supply contracts who did not send back a confirmation via SMS or email during the call and still received new energy supply contracts. In one case it turned out that the signature of the person concerned under an alleged contract was demonstrably forged. The company still demands money from the 86-year-old. In another case, the consumer received a significant price increase shortly after concluding the contract. Your objection was ignored.

The Federal Consumer Center complains that for years a handful of companies have attracted attention with such dubious business practices. The Federal Network Agency is aware of this. But far too little happens. Methmann demands that the Federal Network Agency must act much more quickly. “A few 100 complaints about the same company and about the same problem have to be enough for a response to be made.”

The Federal Network Agency replies Report Mainz to the fact that it is bound by the legal framework. A statement from 2019 shows that she too would like to take tougher action against the companies. At the time, she suggested that fines should be based “on the economic situation” of the company. The current maximum rate of 300,000 euros “does not represent a noticeable sanction, especially for high-performing companies”.

However, “something else has been anchored in the law. We work with the legal options that we have available. That’s what we do. And I don’t have anything else to comment on today,” said Fiete Wulff, press spokesman for the Federal Network Agency . The Federal Ministry of Justice, which was responsible for amending the law, has not yet answered questions from the ARD political magazine.

You can see more on this and other topics in Report Mainz at 9:45 p.m. in the first