Wise Prepay Energy
Assessed 16 July 2026 under NZ · Medium confidence
Evidence last captured 30 August 2026 · next re-check due 30 August 2027
We contacted this company 2 times between 6 August 2026 and 31 August 2026, by email and phone. No reply received.
A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated. It is not a finding about environmental performance, truthfulness, or the merit of the business. HowLegit is not a licensed adviser and nothing here is legal or investment advice.
Where this sits
All 21 energy companies, assessed against the same checklist in the same window.
Wise Prepay Energy ranks 19 of 21 in this sector by overall score, between 47.6% and 96.0%.
Findings
The site makes one environmental statement, on the Philosophy page: "Our tools and smart monitoring empower customers to save costs and use energy efficiently, benefiting both them and the environment." It is one of three brand pillars on that page and carries equal weight with the two that set out the entity's social position. The environmental benefit is asserted without a measure, and the site publishes nothing about where its electricity comes from, so the statement cannot be tested by a reader.
Why this matters. A customer weighing an energy retailer on environmental grounds has one sentence to go on. Whether anything stands behind that sentence decides whether the positioning is informative or decorative.
What closing this looks like
- Publish what the tools and monitoring save, or state the environmental benefit as an expectation rather than a result. The claim carries two halves and only the cost-saving half has a pathway a reader can follow; the environmental half has nothing published behind it.
“Our tools and smart monitoring empower customers to save costs and use energy efficiently, benefiting both them and the environment.”
The claim asserts an environmental benefit arising from the entity's own tools. Nothing is published to support the environmental half of it. The site discloses no generation mix, no carbon intensity and no measure of the saving, so a reader cannot judge what the benefit amounts to. The cost-saving half is supported by the app and usage monitoring the site describes elsewhere, and the Consumer Care Policy signposts GenLess for energy efficiency advice. Source: Philosophy page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
Eight claims were assessed. Two are verified: no credit checks, and no fee charged for disconnection itself. The wording that does not hold up is the Philosophy page's "affordable, reliable energy access for all", which is stated absolutely and is not substantiated anywhere, and "energy is a right, not a privilege", which is offered without a route from the value to an outcome. The grade here follows the weakest of the claims assessed.
Why this matters. These statements are the reason many customers choose this product. If the wording promises more than the service delivers, the people least able to absorb the difference are the ones who meet it.
What closing this looks like
- Substantiate "affordable" with a published comparison, or remove the absolute framing from the Philosophy page.
- Publish what "energy is a right, not a privilege" commits the entity to doing, or reframe it as a value rather than an assurance.
“At Wise Prepay, we champion Energy Equality by ensuring affordable, reliable energy access for all through our flexible prepay system.”
"Energy Equality" is presented as a brand value and the supporting sentence promises "affordable, reliable energy access for all". Affordability is not substantiated on any surface, and independent research on the prepay segment points the other way. Reliability sits against the disconnection process the site itself documents. Source: Philosophy page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“energy is a right, not a privilege”
An aspirational statement, assessed on whether a pathway is referenced. No route is offered from the value to an operational outcome, and the disconnection process set out elsewhere on the site is not reconciled with it. Source: Philosophy page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“accessible to all, regardless of credit score”
Verified. No credit check is run, and this is consistent across the Terms and Conditions, the Consumer Care Policy and the Philosophy page. The claim is accurate as stated. Source: Philosophy page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We strongly recommend you do not use Wise Pre-Pay Energy if you or any other member of your household is or becomes a Medically Dependent Consumer”
This is the disclosure the regulator requires. The Electricity Authority's Consumer Care Obligations factsheet instructs a power company not to recommend a prepay plan where anyone in the household relies on electricity for critical medical support, and the entity states that recommendation plainly on three surfaces. The pathway for a customer who becomes medically dependent is documented alongside it: notify the entity, the status is registered, a health practitioner verifies it, re-verification is sought periodically, and notice is given before the status is removed, with a form linked beside the instruction. The regulator's wording is quoted in full on the evidence attached to this claim. Source: Terms and Conditions clause 7.1, Consumer Care Policy, Medically Dependent page, and the Electricity Authority factsheet.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Welfare checks after disconnection”
A specific operational commitment with stated timing: a welfare check after an overnight disconnection, repeated on the second and third day if the customer remains without power, and offering reconnection help, agency referral and energy saving advice. Source: Consumer Care Policy.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“There is never a fee for disconnection”
The Consumer Care Policy states there is never a fee for disconnection, and no disconnection fee appears on the fee schedule. Two entries sit against the absolute wording. The same policy states that a customer reconnecting after seven days must pay "Any Daily Charges incurred for the period they were disconnected", and the fee schedule carries a "Credit disconnection Daily Charge" running "until the account is terminated". No transaction fee is charged for the disconnection itself; a daily charge continues through it. Source: Consumer Care Policy, Service Fee page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Consumer Care Policy is one of the more detailed in the segment. It covers payment difficulty support, disconnection and reconnection steps with timings, welfare checks, disconnection holds, deferred reconnection, and referrals to Work and Income and Money Talks. What is not substantiated is the claim about support across languages and ethnicities, which rests on the chatbot's stated language coverage and nothing further.
Why this matters. Support commitments matter most at the moment a household is in difficulty. What the policy actually guarantees, and what it leaves to discretion, is the difference between reassurance and protection.
What closing this looks like
- State the language coverage the support commitment actually rests on, and publish the hours human support is available beside the chatbot's availability. The commitment to support customers regardless of language currently rests on the chatbot's stated coverage and nothing else.
- State what "staying connected" means in practice beside the commitment: the low balance alerts, the disconnection hold, the IOU arrangement and the hours each is available.
“committed to helping you manage your energy costs, and staying connected”
An aspirational statement, assessed on whether a pathway is referenced. The Consumer Care Policy sets one out in detail: two-day low balance alerts, a next business day disconnection window, disconnection holds, deferred reconnection arrangements, welfare checks on the first, second and third day after an overnight disconnection, and referrals to Work and Income and to Money Talks. Source: Consumer Care Policy.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Make sure all our customers have access to support regardless of language, ethnicity, educational achievement, culture, gender, physical and intellectual ability, age, health, income, and wealth”
A commitment to support every customer regardless of a named list of characteristics, published in the Consumer Care Policy. Two parts of it are not substantiated and one is measurably not met. On language, the only pathway published is the chatbot's stated coverage of more than 100 languages; no translated material, named language capability or interpreter arrangement appears anywhere on the site, and the published call centre runs Monday to Friday 8am to 5:30pm in English. On physical and intellectual ability, the published protections are not reachable by a customer using assistive technology. Measured across the thirteen published pages on 23 August 2026, 146 of 159 images carry no alt attribute at all, and none of the remainder uses an empty alt attribute, which is how a decorative image is correctly marked, so the omission is not a design choice about decoration. No page declares a document language, and 63 links have no accessible name. Among them, on every page, are the marks for Utilities Disputes, the Electricity Authority and the Billy price comparison service, so the route to free independent dispute resolution is published as a picture that a screen reader cannot announce. The commitment names the group; the delivery does not reach it.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
Two of the entity's own surfaces disagree about the same process. The homepage help section states that a disconnection hold must be requested between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Thursday, while the Consumer Care Policy states the same hours, Monday to Friday. Which window is operated cannot be established from what is published. Separately, the page carrying Customer Care Centre hours still publishes the schedule for 22 December 2025 to 5 January 2026 and no page on the site links to it, checked against all thirteen content addresses on 30 August 2026.
Why this matters. Customers meet a brand across a website, documents, an app and third party listings. Where those surfaces disagree, the customer carries the difference.
What closing this looks like
- Align the disconnection hold window across the homepage and the Consumer Care Policy, including the time the hold runs to and the fee that applies, then update or remove the operating hours page and either restore the notice that points to it or remove the markup that no longer displays.
“Disconnection hold requests accepted “Monday to Thursday” on the homepage and “Monday to Friday” in the Consumer Care Policy”
Two of the entity's own documents give a customer facing disconnection different instructions, and the text beside each one shows the conflict is stated on both sides rather than a stray typo. The homepage help section states that requests for a disconnection hold need to be made between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Thursday, and adds that the entity does not offer disconnection hold requests on Fridays because it does not disconnect power on weekends or public holidays. The Consumer Care Policy states the same hours, Monday to Friday, with no Friday exclusion. The document that grants the wider access is the Consumer Care Policy, which is the document written to the Electricity Authority's Consumer Care Obligations. A customer following it would ask on a Friday and, by the homepage rule, be refused. Two further differences sit in the same passages: the homepage puts the hold at 11.30am the next day while the policy puts it between 11:30am and 3:00pm the following day, and the policy discloses a $3.90 disconnection hold fee that the homepage passage does not mention. Both surfaces live 23 August 2026. Tested against the strongest reading in the entity's favour, which is that a Friday hold is unnecessary because the entity does not disconnect at weekends. The Terms do not support it: they state that supply will not be disconnected before 9.00am or after 5.00pm Monday to Friday, or on a weekend, so a Friday disconnection inside those hours is permitted. A household facing one needs a hold on the day the homepage says holds are not offered.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Operating hours notice for 22 December 2025 to 5 January 2026, live with no route to it from anywhere on the site”
The page at /service_hours is live and no page on the site links to it. Walking the rendered navigation of all thirteen content addresses on 30 August 2026 found zero inbound links to it, while the served HTML of all thirteen mentions the address: the link sits in markup that never reaches the rendered page. A customer cannot arrive at this page from anywhere on the site and can only reach it by knowing the address or through a search engine. Current hours are published on the help page, so a customer looking for hours in the ordinary way finds the right answer, and that is recorded because it cuts against the finding. What remains is a live page the site's own navigation cannot reach. Source: /service_hours, and a rendered-navigation walk of all thirteen content addresses, 30 August 2026.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Philosophy page states that the prepay model ensures accessible energy for everyone, including those facing financial challenges. That is an outcome rather than an intention, and nothing published tests it. No disconnection, arrears or hardship figures appear anywhere on the site, and no electricity rate is published against which affordability could be judged. Coverage: navigation enumeration over the live estate, iterated until the address list stopped growing, eighteen of eighteen published addresses retrieved on 19 August 2026.
Why this matters. An audience judges a business on the issues most material to it. Messaging that addresses everything except the central issue reads as avoidance, whether or not it is.
What closing this looks like
- Publish how prepay pricing compares with standard plans. The Billy mark already appears in the footer of every page, so the signpost to independent comparison is in place; what is missing is the comparison itself.
“It ensures accessible energy for everyone, including those facing financial challenges”
The Philosophy page asserts an outcome, not an intention, and names the group it applies to. Nothing published anywhere on the site tests it: no disconnection figures, no arrears or hardship data, no affordability measure, and no rate against which affordability could be judged. Coverage for that absence is stated: navigation enumeration over the live estate, iterated until the address list stopped growing, eighteen of eighteen content addresses retrieved on 19 August 2026. An outcome claimed for households in financial difficulty is the one this brand most needs to be able to show.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
"No Contract!" appears on the homepage without qualification. Clause 1 of the entity's own Terms and Conditions reads "These Terms and Conditions form a legally binding Consumer Contract", and the phrase appears eight times in that document. The Philosophy page carries the same position as "flexibility without contracts or credit checks". The qualified wording the entity uses in its Terms, no fixed term or minimum period, is accurate and would carry the same message.
Why this matters. Short absolute wording on a homepage is what a customer remembers and acts on. Where the published terms say something different, the gap is carried by the customer at the point it matters.
What closing this looks like
- Replace "No Contract!" on the homepage and "without contracts" on the Philosophy page with "No fixed term" or "No lock-in", which is what the Terms already say.
“No Bonds!”
Verified. No bond or deposit is required. The Terms and Conditions confirm this, and the $50 minimum first top-up is credited to the account for electricity used rather than held as a bond. Source: Homepage.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“No Credit Checks!”
Verified. No credit check is run. The Terms and Conditions, the Consumer Care Policy and the Philosophy page are consistent on this point. Source: Homepage.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“No Contract!”
"No Contract!" is stated without qualification on the homepage, and repeated on the Philosophy page as "offering flexibility without contracts or credit checks". Clause 1 of the entity's own Terms and Conditions reads: "These Terms and Conditions form a legally binding Consumer Contract", and the phrase appears eight times in that document. Read as a customer would read it, the claim means no fixed term and no lock-in, and for a prepay product that is broadly true: clause 2.3 says "There is no fixed term or minimum period". The claim is therefore overstated rather than contradicted, because the unqualified wording asserts more than the terms support while the substance a customer takes from it holds. The qualified wording the entity already uses at clause 2.3 carries the same message and is accurate. Source: Homepage, Philosophy page, Terms and Conditions.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“No fixed term or minimum period”
Verified. There is no fixed term, no minimum period and no early termination fee. A $30 account closure fee applies, which is an administration charge rather than a charge for leaving early. Source: Terms and Conditions clause 2.3.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Consumer Care Policy alignment”
The Consumer Care Policy sets out the entity's position against the regulator's consumer care obligations and reflects the requirements that took effect on 1 April 2025. Source: Consumer Care Policy.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The entity publishes some claims a reader can check. The payment security claim names specific card industry certifications, and the fee schedule is published in full. Two do not hold up. No electricity rate is published anywhere on the site, and the Help page's "Our AI Chatbot is available 24/7 to support you in 100+ languages" puts a specific figure on language coverage with nothing published behind it.
Why this matters. A specific commercial claim invites a customer to rely on it. Without something a reader can check, reliance rests on the assertion alone.
What closing this looks like
- Publish what the chatbot's language coverage actually is, or replace "100+ languages" with the coverage that can be shown.
“bank-grade security ... fully certified with Visa AIS and Mastercard SDP (PCI DSS) compliance at the processor level”
Substantiated by naming specific certifications. Payment card compliance at processor level is a defined industry standard and "bank-grade security" is used here alongside the named certifications rather than in place of them. Source: Top Up page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Our AI Chatbot is available 24/7 to support you in 100+ languages”
The 24/7 availability of the chatbot is stated on three pages and the distinction from human support is clear: the Help page publishes call centre hours of Monday to Friday, 8am to 5:30pm, beside the chatbot description. The unsupported element is the language claim. Support "in 100+ languages" is a specific figure with nothing published behind it. Source: Homepage, Help page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
No kWh rate or daily charge is published anywhere on the site, and four pricing addresses return a page not found, including the fee schedule address the Terms cite five times under the customer's own payment obligation. The fee schedule that is published is detailed, and one row on it carries no amount: the daily charge that runs while an account is disconnected reads daily fixed charge where every other row states a figure, Free or Quoted. A customer already on the service cannot find what that costs, and neither can anyone else. Checked live on 30 August 2026.
Why this matters. Price is the first thing most customers compare and the hardest thing to reconstruct after signing up. Where rates are not published, comparison shopping is not available to them.
What closing this looks like
- Publish kWh rates and daily charges on a public pricing page that does not require an address to view.
- Repoint the fee schedule address cited in the Terms and Conditions to the page that exists, and publish an amount against the credit disconnection daily charge.
“Fee schedule (Service Fee page)”
A full fee schedule is published with GST included and a stated effective date, which is better disclosure than most of the segment. One row is incomplete: "Credit disconnection Daily Charge", payable "until the account is terminated", carries no amount, while every other row states a figure, "Free" or "Quoted". Source: Service Fee page.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Credit disconnection Daily Charge, until the account is terminated, daily fixed charge”
The published fee schedule states an amount, Free or Quoted for every charge except one. The row for the daily charge that runs while an account is disconnected reads daily fixed charge in the column where every other row carries a figure, and the two reconnection rows immediately above it read $20.00 and $150.00. A customer who is disconnected is told they will pay a daily charge for the period they were off supply, and the schedule does not say what it is. Source: the Service Fee page, checked live on 30 August 2026.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
Nova Energy is named in the Terms and Conditions, the Consumer Care Policy and the medical dependency form. It is not named on any page a customer would use to choose a retailer. Todd Corporation, the ultimate owner, does not appear anywhere on the site or in either published document. The brand's language of equal access sits against pricing that cannot be compared and a segment price premium that is not disclosed.
Why this matters. Consistency of tone and disclosure across a brand is what allows a customer to know who they are dealing with and what to expect from them.
What closing this looks like
- Name Nova Energy in the footer or an about section on the pages a customer uses to choose a retailer, not only in the Terms and the Consumer Care Policy.
- Qualify "equal access for everyone" on the homepage, or publish what access the prepay product gives that a postpay product does not.
“equal access for everyone”
Partly substantiated. There are no credit checks and no bonds, which removes two common barriers. Set against that, rates are not published, the segment carries a documented price premium against standard plans, and the service is not currently open to new customers. Source: Homepage.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Wise Pre-Pay (a division of Nova Energy Limited), disclosed in the Terms and Conditions and the Consumer Care Policy only”
Wise Pre-Pay is disclosed as a division of Nova Energy Limited in clause 1.1 of the Terms and Conditions, in the Consumer Care Policy and on the medical dependency form. The entity makes no claim anywhere on its estate about who owns it, about being independent, or about being locally or solely owned, so there is no assertion that a fuller ownership disclosure would be needed to substantiate. The disclosure that exists is accurate and sits in the documents that govern the customer relationship. Source: Terms and Conditions clause 1.1, Consumer Care Policy.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The complaint process is published and specific: acknowledgement within 2 working days, a response within 7, a resolution target of 20, and escalation to Utilities Disputes on 0800 22 33 40, with the entity's own phone number, email address and postal address alongside. The help page publishes the call centre hours beside the chatbot. Three things qualify it: the faults page links to a network company at an address that resolves to the site's own error page, and the energy efficiency referral in the Consumer Care Policy publishes a number that is the dispute scheme's number with a digit added. The dispute scheme's mark in the footer is also an image with no text alternative, so a customer using a screen reader will not find it there.
Why this matters. A customer who has a problem needs to find the route to resolve it quickly. Visible complaint steps and an external escalation route are what make a remedy real rather than nominal.
What closing this looks like
- Correct the three defects on the complaint and faults pathway: make the network company link on the faults page an absolute address, correct the GenLess referral number, which is currently the Utilities Disputes number with a digit added, and give the Utilities Disputes footer mark a text alternative so it can be found by a customer using a screen reader.
“you can contact Utilities Disputes for free independent advice on 0800 22 33 40”
The remedy pathway is published and specific. The Consumer Care Policy sets out acknowledgement within 2 working days, a response within 7, a resolution target of 20, and escalation to Utilities Disputes with the phone number and email address; the Terms add the 20 and 40 working day triggers for referral and the scheme's postal address; and the entity publishes its own phone number, email and postal address. All verified live on 24 August 2026. Three defects sit on that pathway and are recorded because they qualify it. The faults page links to a network company as a bare www.vector.co.nz with no scheme, so a browser resolves it against the site and returns the entity's own error page, on the page a customer reaches during an outage. The Consumer Care Policy publishes the GenLess energy efficiency referral as 0800 22 33 401, which is the Utilities Disputes number with a digit added, in the document that publishes the correct number elsewhere. And the Utilities Disputes footer mark has no accessible name. The grade holds because the scheme's phone number, email address and postal address are all published as text in two documents, so the route does not depend on the mark, and the accessibility failure is graded under S-05 rather than counted twice.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Consumer Care Policy points customers to Billy, an independent price comparison service for the electricity market, and the Billy mark appears in the footer of every page beside the Electricity Authority and Utilities Disputes marks. For a customer trying to compare retailers, that signpost is published where the commitment to customer care is. Two limits qualify it: the mark is an image link with no text alternative, so a customer using a screen reader will not find it. Billy also cannot be searched without a power bill or an ICP number, so whether any particular retailer appears there is not something a reader can check from the public record.
Why this matters. Customers increasingly start on comparison sites rather than a company website. Being present there, and being described accurately, decides whether the business is considered at all.
“If you would like a place to check energy prices, you can go to the Billy website”
The Consumer Care Policy points customers to an independent price comparison service run for the electricity market, and it does so in the body of the policy as a text link carrying the accessible name Billy, so the signpost itself is reachable by a customer using a screen reader. The Billy mark also appears in the footer of every page beside the Electricity Authority and Utilities Disputes marks, confirmed on all thirteen published pages on 24 August 2026, and that footer mark is an image link with no accessible name, which is graded under S-05 rather than a second time here. Where what is being assessed is whether a customer can find and compare the retailer, signposting an independent service in the document that governs customer care is a substantive answer, and it is in the entity's own wording. The four comparison platform listings the original assessment relied on are not carried. None was sourced, and the service the entity itself names cannot be queried without a power bill or an ICP number, so no reviewer can verify a listing from the public record. A prepay customer does hold an ICP, so the route the entity points to remains usable by the people it is offered to.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
Nothing is published to support the environmental statement made on the Philosophy page. There is no sustainability reporting, no emissions or generation data, and no environmental certification or badge across the 13 captured pages, the three further pages retrieved for this review, the two published documents, or any image tag on the site.
Why this matters. Environmental statements carry weight only when something stands behind them. With no supporting material published, a reader cannot test the one statement the site does make.
No environmental comparisons or baseline claims identified.
Why this matters. Comparative environmental claims need a stated baseline before a reader can judge them. No comparison is offered here, so none is relied upon.
No environmental imagery or symbolism is used, so there is no visual environmental framing to assess. The site uses a purple and white scheme with no nature imagery and no sustainability iconography, and nothing in the visual presentation implies environmental credentials.
Why this matters. Imagery and colour set expectations before a word is read. A scheme that does not imply environmental credentials avoids creating an impression the site cannot support.
The one environmental statement the site makes appears on the Philosophy page and nowhere else. It is not repeated, qualified or contradicted on any other page, in either published document or in the sign-up path, so there is no inconsistency between channels to report.
Why this matters. A claim that changes between the homepage, the documents and the sign-up path leaves customers holding different versions of the same promise.
No forward-looking environmental commitments. No net-zero targets, no climate strategy, no reference to parent company's environmental position.
Why this matters. Forward-looking commitments tell a customer where a business intends to go. Their absence is not a fault in itself, but it removes any basis for judging direction.
No representation or cultural engagement claim was identified on any published surface, so there is nothing here to assess. The original assessment rested on the absence of overstated representation, which is an observation rather than a statement the entity makes. A reframe onto an existing statement was attempted and could not be made, so this area is recorded as not applicable rather than passed. Coverage: navigation enumeration over the live estate, iterated until the address list stopped growing, eighteen of eighteen published addresses retrieved on 19 August 2026.
Why this matters. Imagery and language signal who a service is for. Representation that matches the service avoids promising a relationship the business is not structured to deliver.
No comparative or superiority claims were identified. The entity makes no comparison to other retailers and uses no cheapest, best value or lowest price language, so there is nothing for this area to assess.
Why this matters. Comparative claims shift a decision between providers. Where none are made, that decision rests on the customer's own comparison instead.
This area is not applicable to the current assessment. Both promotions it covered carried their own closing date of 6 December 2024 inside the same block as the offer, and neither is published any more: each returned zero occurrences on both Terms addresses on 30 August 2026. The referral credit is still published, on a page that also carries the entity's notice that it is not accepting new customers, so the reward cannot currently be taken up. With nothing outstanding that a consumer can act on, there is no outcome promise to assess and the area is excluded from the score.
Why this matters. A promised benefit sets an expectation the business must be able to meet. An offer that cannot currently be fulfilled costs goodwill at the moment a customer tries to take it up.
What closing this looks like
- Publish the referral terms on the Refer a Friend page and state there that a referred person cannot sign up while onboarding is paused. The site-wide pause notice already appears on that page; what is missing is the connection between the pause and the reward the page is offering.
- State the expiry date beside the $50 referral offer, or state that it runs until further notice, so a customer can tell whether the offer is current.
“You both will receive $50 credit”
The referral offer is published on the Refer a Friend page and promises a $50 credit to both parties. The notice that the entity is not taking new customers renders above the fold on that page and on all thirteen content addresses, at desktop and mobile widths, so a referred person cannot complete the step the reward depends on. The offer carries no closing date and no reference to the pause on the page itself. Source: /menu/refer and the site-wide notice, both checked 30 August 2026.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
What has changed since first assessment
Assessed from the public record, then reviewed three times before publication. Each review was carried out by HowLegit on its own initiative. Wise Prepay Energy was not involved. What moved, and why.
- 16 July 2026First assessmentFirst assessmentC
Assessed from the public record, unsolicited, as part of the New Zealand energy sector scan. Wise Prepay Energy did not commission it.
- 18 August 2026Quality reviewOur correctionC
Quality review. The audit recorded the Environmental dimension as having no claims to assess. The entity's Philosophy page carries three brand pillars and the third states that its tools and monitoring help customers use energy efficiently, benefiting the environment. Two of the three pillars had already been graded as claims and the third had not. The statement was graded, and the environmental dimension now rests on it. The visual framing assessment, which had been passed on the observation that no environmental imagery is used, was set to not applicable because no claim sits behind it. Separately, the homepage contract claim was recorded at the level of the grouped finding but not against the claim itself; that was corrected so the finding follows from the wording assessed. The commercial score is unchanged.
- 23 August 2026Quality reviewOur correctionC-
Quality review. The visual and cultural integrity area had been recorded as a pass, and the basis given for it was that the site makes no representation claim that overstates cultural engagement. That is an observation about what is absent, not a statement by the business that could be assessed, so a pass asserted that something had been substantiated when there was nothing to substantiate. The published surfaces were re-read for any representation or cultural engagement statement that could be assessed in its place and none was found, so the area is now recorded as not applicable and excluded from the score. This removes a full-marks area from the Social calculation, which is why the Social score falls from 60.0 to 52.0 and the overall from 47.8 to 45.1. No finding about the business changed and no new shortcoming was identified.
- 30 August 2026Quality reviewOur correctionC-
Quality review. The outcome promises area had been flagged on the basis that expired promotional offers remained published. Re-read against the captured wording, each promotion carried its own closing date of 6 December 2024 inside the same block as the offer, so a reader who reached the offer reached the date it closed. Both have since been removed from the site entirely, returning zero occurrences on both Terms addresses. The third offer, a referral credit, is still published but sits on a page carrying the entity's own notice that it is not accepting new customers, so it cannot be taken up. With nothing outstanding that a consumer can act on, the area is recorded as not applicable and excluded from the score, and the two historical promotions are withdrawn from display while their evidence is retained. This removes one area from the Commercial calculation, which is why the Commercial score moves from 43.3 to 44.0 and the overall from 45.1 to 45.3. No finding about the business changed and no new shortcoming was identified. The assessment of this area depends on the onboarding pause, which the entity describes as temporary, and that dependency is recorded as a diagnostic flag.
Cite this
One company, with every graded claim, its own published wording and the dated capture each grade rests on.
You are here
The full analysis behind these grades: what the sector claims, how much of it holds up, and the seven findings that run across it.
Read it, free and without registration →
HowLegit, Wise Prepay Energy — messaging integrity assessment. Energy sector register, assessed 16 July 2026. Overall C (48.0%). https://howlegit.com/register/Energy/wise-prepay-energy A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated, not on its truth or on the merit of the business. Not legal or investment advice. Produced by HowLegit, which also sells audits commercially. The data on this page is public.
This entry is part of a complete sector scan. Companies not listed on the Energy register were not assessed — which is not the same as being cleared.