They show that the company from the Audax group attracts customers of electricity and gas without the customers’ consent

Six electricity and gas distributors from the Audax group were fined 9.2 million euros by the National Market and Competition Commission (CNMC) at the end of last year. The reason: attracting customers from other electricity and gas markets through «fraudulent business practiceswhich consists of acts of fraud and confusion». According to the CNMC filing, those companies’ advertisements, whether in person or over the phone, mostly pretended to work for a client company in order to offer them a price discount. By accepting it, they changed the contract and the company without the affected person knowing. Until the first bill arrived in the name of the other group.

The first sound of the alarm regarding the practices carried out by the marketers of the Audax group was given by EDP (now TotalEnergies) in April 2020. Since then, Competition has begun to pull the thread and receive more complaints. In the course of its investigation, the CNMC collected 2,319 requests provided by the originators of affected customers: EDP, Endesa, Holaluz, Naturgy and Iberdrola. OCU and two individuals also filed complaints. They all agreed to target changes to contracts without consent and to trick and deceive customers.

The CNMC’s sanctions resolution was subject to appeal before the National Court and the Audax Group took advantage of that option. And while his case is solved, it seems he’s back to his old self. At least that’s how it is Association of financial users, Asufin, in the complaint submitted to the Tender. In it, he assures that one of the Audax traders fined at the end of 2022, Masqluz, has a “campaign [telefónica] from huge deceptions when contracting electricity and gas». In his complaint, Asufin contributes “audio recordings showing that the client was duped during the marketing process into believing it was a mere rate change when in reality it was trying to attract him as a new client.”

According to Asufin, the advertisement hides that it is from Masqluz. Rather, he assures the client that he works for an energy consultancy and that he “skipped one incident because he has more kilowatt-hours than his share” and that he will resolve that incident very quickly. He then asks for personal information, including a bank account IBAN and a place of supply code, to prepare a contract that, “far from involving a change in exchange rates, what it disguises is a change in supplier.”

Asufin condemns that, until the first bill arrives, the client does not realize that he has changed the distributor, and does not have time to exercise his fourteen-day right of withdrawal.

Audax, for its part, confirms that it received “a request for prior information from the CNMC based on the supervisory tasks entrusted to them in a specific case in which the performance of Masqluz is not prejudiced and which has to do with an external subcontractor of this company”. the groups undertake to investigate some facts that they say they were not aware of and because of which they themselves feel affected: “We will cooperate in whatever is necessary.”