Help with Huge Elec Bill

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

OK, some progress then. Based on what you have said you should dispute the revised BG final bill strictly in accordance with the BG complaints procedure in writing by recorded delivery, or by email, on the grounds that the day/night readings are transposed "per agreement with the gaining supplier".

My strong recommendation is that you do not mention the "estimated reading" issue. That is irrelevant now you have agreed the Edf transfer readings.

Some posters have mentioned a "14 month issue". I do not know the answer to that but I do not think it should be a customer concern. If necessary the Energy Ombudsman can adjudicate the issue.

For the benefit of others, posters including myself have also mentioned the customer responsibility to submit regular readings and/or to check supplier estimates. That omission has contributed to the problems in this case and for that reason I recommend you quit the BG "blame game". That said, it is not reasonable to expect customers to identify the known industry problem of transposed day/night readings on meters which are not clearly so identified.

Don't worry about the 14 month rule, that's the cut off point for supplier payment data. There are various correction techniques dependant on the situation but in a loss on change it supplier, the supplier will probably have to take the hit since the Data Aggregator and Data Collector are no longer appointed by the old supplier hence no correction under GVC (something I didn't add to the other post)

Terrylw1

Lazyjack - work it through with Bgas by asking them what they received. If they receive a re-agreed reading from your new supplier, they may not have challenged the high amount it caused because they would expect you have agreed it. A bit of a cop out really but sometimes these companies expect you to call them if its wrong.

Its still possibly a Bgas internal error but its worth ruling out the fact EDF haven't sent it to them transposed.

jalexa

Terrylw1 wrote: »

(And in English for everyone else before Jalexa tells me off! If previously overcharged 5000kwh over 12 months ago, they can't use those dates and make a correction to error data but provide a correction of the 5000kwh but using dates in the current 12 month run...well its actually a calendar so the 12 months are a snapshot based on a starting date for the Run, but I doubt you need to know all this)

:D:D

My simplistic position is that the suppliers need to agree that the losing supplier's closing reading and the gaining supplier's opening readings are identical.

If I understand the OP's latest post, that is now there on numbers with the only issue being a day/night transposition on the BG revised final bill.

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

:D:D

My simplistic position is that the suppliers need to agree that the losing supplier's closing reading and the gaining supplier's opening readings are identical.

If I understand the OP's latest post, that is now there on numbers with the only issue being a day/night transposition on the BG revised final bill.

Once it has passed final reconciliation at 14 months, the old supplier can't make a proper correction so its possible to have different opening & closing reading. As long as there is a gap, the customer isn't charged twice.

Overlapping shouldn't really happen but the problem is that the old aggregation agent, even if appointed by the new supplier, can't touch that data. So, whilst the new supplier could request to billed more consumption, the old supplier can't lower the switch data to match.

The likely outcome is that the old supplier buys energy but can't bill for it and the new supplier gets to charge for something they shouldn't. Its a real grey area on a switch and the suppliers will protect the customer to avoid complaints but will sweep the settlement under the carpet. In fact, I would be surprised if many staff working this process understand settlement correction & crystallisation.

There was a problem a few years back with a supplier who had a lot of overpaid settlement due to this. It was argued for years how to resolve it...and in the end I don't recall any solution hence they just paid and let it go.

Terrylw1

Checked on how the suppliers pay where the incorrect switch reading is beyond 14 months. The suppliers can correct their billing to the customer thus shifting the switch reading but cannot correct the settlement the old supplier paid. So, if the switch reading was too high...the old supplier pays for the new suppliers energy and the suppliers lower the switch reading purely on the customer side.

To get the data changed to refund the old supplier thus forcing the new supplier to correctly pay, they have to apply to the industry for a trading dispute.

This is a bit like telling Trading Standards your product doesn't work...so suppliers obviously don't want the spotlight on them and swallow the cost. Trading Disputes are externally managed and they are a big deal so no supplier will volunteer for that!

They could settle outside this if it were a project to calculate & collect a large business loss, which some distributors have done. However, this as an invoiced amount and it was before the distributor came under the remit of Elexon, so now this would have to be a trading dispute as the distributor is signed onto the Balancing & Settlements Code (BSC) where this is a documented requirement.

lazyjack

Further update on the situation......

Have now received a very messy revised 'Final Bill' from BG, for period Jan 10 - Jul 11. They are stating an outstanding balance of around £500 (previously over £1400).

After reading some of the Back Billing document, under 'Inaccurate Bills', I can't see any reason why it does not apply to this situation. Looking at the DD history, BG even REDUCED the DD amount in Nov 10, based on inaccurate estimate readings. Also, the final bill STILL shows transposed switch readings, with a £ adjustment which is meant to offset the overcharge as a result of the transposed readings.

I am certainly not happy for my M-I-L to just pay up, the bill is almost impossible to understand (and check). Would it be best to call BG first and see what they have to say ? Or is a letter/email now the best course of action (mentioning the Back Billing Code of Practice).

I would appreciate if someone with billing experience could take a look at the bill, just to see what you make of it. I will send a link via PM if anyone is interested.

Thanks in advance for any advice.