"Not Air Conditioning, But Heating Charges?" Consumers Shocked by Unexpected 'Bill Bomb' in Mid-Summer

Frustration Mounts Over City Gas Meter Reading Errors
Refund and Deduction Procedures Differ Despite Mistakes
Consumers Face Growing Confusion Amid Lack of Standards
"Clearer Guidance Needed to Minimize Disputes"

In May, Ms. A, a woman in her 30s living in an apartment in Seocho-gu, Seoul, was charged 130,000 won in heating fees—despite not having used any heating—on her monthly management bill. This was due to an error in entering the numbers during the gas meter reading process. Although the mistake was made by the city gas company’s meter reader, the supplier referred her to the apartment management office. The management office responded that, since they had already reported the total usage for the entire apartment complex, there was no regulation for individual refunds. Ms. A expressed her frustration, saying, “It’s already upsetting that they’ll only deduct the amount from my October bill when heating resumes, but then I was charged heating fees again in June.”

Meanwhile, Mr. B, who lives in Busan, experienced his city gas bill being swapped with a neighbor’s due to a meter reader’s mistake. Even after contacting the city gas supplier to correct the error, he still received a notice for unpaid charges. Before he could be reimbursed for the overcharged amount, he was urged to promptly pay a bill for charges he did not actually owe. On top of this, his cumulative usage was also entered incorrectly, forcing Mr. B to repeatedly dispute the issue with the city gas supplier’s customer center. He pointed out, “Even though it was the company’s mistake, the burden of resolving it kept falling on the consumer, who had to keep calling.”

Cases of errors in city gas meter readings—such as being billed huge heating fees during the summer—are recurring every year. This is because refund and settlement procedures differ depending on the city gas supplier and the management structure of the condominium. There are growing calls for unified response standards to ensure that consumers are not left shouldering the responsibility.

According to the Korea Consumer Agency, there were 142 consumer consultations related to unfair city gas charges in 2023, 118 in 2024, and 148 last year, with more than 100 cases reported annually. In the first half of this year alone, 86 cases were filed, indicating an upward trend. The number of cases in which consumer relief was provided was only 6 (4.2%) in 2023, 8 (6.8%) in 2024, and 12 (8.1%) in 2025.

Gas meter in a residential area in downtown Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

The domestic city gas supply system operates through multiple entities. Korea Gas Corporation imports liquefied natural gas (LNG) from overseas and supplies it wholesale to regional city gas companies, which in turn sell the gas to homes and businesses and handle meter readings, billing, and customer service. In some apartment complexes, the management office is involved in the settlement of management fees, which can obscure responsibility when errors occur in meter readings.

In many apartment complexes, the management office contracts directly with the city gas supplier, aggregates each household’s usage, and reports it collectively. In contrast, some complexes use direct meter readings by the city gas supplier, self-meter readings where residents input their own meter data, or remote meter reading systems. Because the entity responsible for readings and the billing structure varies from complex to complex, the procedures and timing for resolving errors and issuing refunds can differ even for the same type of issue.

Consumers cannot choose their regional supplier, and because refund and settlement procedures vary depending on the operator and management entity, even those who experience the same problem may face different outcomes.

According to the City Gas Industry Statistics Monthly Report by the Korea City Gas Association, as of April this year, the top suppliers by volume were Samchully, Seoul City Gas, Kyungdong City Gas, Cowon Energy Service, and Yesco. Summarizing their refund procedures, each company claims to refund or offset excess payments within 2 to 5 days if an overcharge due to a meter reading error is confirmed. However, the actual handling varies according to region and the management style of the apartment complex. Refunds were relatively prompt when self-meter reading and online settlement systems were used. But when a meter reader made a mistake, additional verification steps were required. Where the apartment management office handled interim settlements, they sometimes did not get involved in the refund process, citing the management fee billing procedures.

Despite recurring meter reading errors, the lack of standardized procedures is a major concern. A representative from the Korea Consumer Agency’s Housing and Industrial Products Team stated, “If a consumer has paid the wrong amount due to a meter reading error, they are eligible for a refund or offset settlement according to consumer dispute resolution standards. However, we cannot provide a universal solution guideline,” adding, “Since meter reading and settlement systems differ depending on the supplier or the management method of the apartment complex, and the procedures may also vary, it is necessary to strengthen guidance so that consumers can easily understand the process.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.