Photovoltaics and heat pumps are not impulse purchases from a shop basket, but powerful investments requiring substantial financial outlays.
A cat in a bag with an unspecified expiry date
The consumer, pulling tens of thousands of zlotys from their pocket (or often taking on credit), expects concrete answers: exactly what they are buying and when the equipment will start saving money. Meanwhile Columbus Energy’s practices, according to the regulator, fell far short of the market standard of reliability.
Primarily, the company did not provide precise completion dates in contracts. Instead of a specific installation date, customers received only vague assurances that the date would be set later via phone or email. As one would predict, the declared maximum start dates for work were repeatedly exceeded, and impatient customers were met with a call center.
Moreover, the documents provided before signing the contract lacked basic technical data of the devices. Consumers entered the transaction almost in the dark, without a chance to reliably compare the set’s parameters with competitors’ offers. This is an absolute denial of transparency.
See also: The collusion of carriers and the network giant led to pathology in the labor market? UOKiK stepped in with an audit
Legal traps and the illusion of withdrawal
Even more interesting (and equally unsettling) is the thread concerning the right to withdraw from a service. Polish and EU law gives consumers 14 days to unilaterally cancel a contract signed outside the business premises. Columbus Energy, however, created a mechanism that, in the eyes of UOKiK, artificially closed that door.
According to the contested provisions, it was enough to start the first technical works for the customer to automatically lose the right to withdraw. The regulator reminds that both heat pumps and photovoltaic panels are infrastructure that can be dismantled if needed, and the mere start of installation does not strip the consumer of statutory rights.
Additionally, a separate document hid clauses suggesting that the customer was demanding an immediate start of work before the 14 days had passed. Such legal wizardry was designed to effectively block consumers’ way back before they fully reconsidered their decision.
See also: UOKiK accuses companies from Lower Silesia! Multi‑million penalties threaten them for setting wages, benefits, and more
Refunds? “Process ongoing”, i.e., a financial freezer
When customers managed to effectively cancel the contract, the next painful stage began: recovering money. According to regulations, the company must return the paid funds immediately, no later than 14 days. However, a wave of complaints indicated that Columbus Energy turned this process into a marathon of patience.
Customers waiting for refunds of deposits waited months, receiving template responses to complaints stating: “the settlement and approval of the refund process is ongoing.” No concrete dates, no declarations, just frozen capital.
The right to withdraw from a contract signed outside the premises is one of the fundamental consumer rights. The entrepreneur should not construct the content of provisions in a way that may lead customers to believe that this right expires earlier than the law states
- says UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny.
UOKiK sends a clear signal to the entire renewable energy sector – an innovative product does not justify archaic and prohibited market practices.
If the UOKiK president’s accusations are confirmed, Columbus Energy could face a penalty of up to 10% of the company’s annual turnover. For a company operating in such a competitive market, this is a powerful financial and reputational blow, and getting back on track could take many quarters.
See also: Dino shares at a 28% discount. UOKiK strikes at the giant! Working conditions in the network under scrutiny
Source: Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
