Backbilling question - do i qualify

Terrylw1

Don't forget that the ERA billing code is self regulated and relates yo various scenarios.

Before ERA was established, Ofgem banned suppliers from back billing for energy over 12 months old in response to the Energywatch super complaint.

ERA can't override an Ofgem directive.

I agree with Baked, the ERA code is written with a sting in the tail. However, my own experience within suppliers is that the consumption is removed prior to adding the payments & credits back in. If you didn't do this, providing you had an accurate DD in place, you could actually recalculate the customer bills including the old energy and over 12 months of payments would swallow that up...and it would also cause the customer to be put into debt for the last 12 months.

It also doesn't tally with the advice the Eon reps have been giving on here.

jalexa

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Before ERA was established, Ofgem banned suppliers from back billing for energy over 12 months old in response to the Energywatch super complaint.

ERA can't override an Ofgem directive.

I agree with that. Anyway the appearance of "additional" in the "effective clause" simply begs the question "additional over what?". Wywth's somewhat perverse interpretation is not something I have seem substantiated by other posts on practical outcomes. If it ever was to it absolutely would merit testing by the Energy Ombudsman.

And there is another thing. From to time we get the "you've used it so you should pay" posts. The 'Wywyth' interpretation would turn the "Billing Code" back-billing clause into a payment avoider's charter when it isn't (it's a practical articulation of regulatory requirement) because the interpretation would favour those who had paid least (or nothing).

Wywth

jalexa wrote: »

No you didn't highlight the "effective clause", you highlighted the "Background Guidance". The effective clause is much simpler thus...

5.1 If your supplier is at fault, they will not seek additional payment for unbilled energy accrued more than one year prior to the bill being issued.

I was quite surprised at your (repeated in several posts) interpretation starting with the unqualified "no, because you were paying EDF by direct debit" if only because it is not an interpretation I had previously considered.

On reflection I can see that the "effective clause" includes the weasel-word "additional" which the "Background Guidance" goes on to amplify without (IMO) any sound grounds. IMO the problem with your interpretation is that it allocates the customer credits first to the oldest unbilled energy when I believe it would be allocated first to the most recent billed (or unbilled) energy, bearing in mind that there is always liability to pay the most recent 12 months of energy consumed.

In practice, and in most cases, it is likely that all unbilled energy supplied more than 12 months prior would be subject to back-billing relief. Anyway it is up to the supplier to propose a remedy, subject always to challenge via the complaints process and potentially through Energy Ombudsman referral.

BTW I haven't (yet) formed an opinion on the OP's case.

No, that is not what happens in most cases.
It would be above and beyond what the back billing code calls for.

Wywth

jalexa wrote: »

I agree with that. Anyway the appearance of "additional" in the "effective clause" simply begs the question "additional over what?". Wywth's someone perverse interpretation is not something I have seem substantiated by other posts on practical outcomes. If it ever was to it absolutely would merit testing by the Energy Ombudsman.

And there is another thing. From to time we get the "you've used it so you should pay" posts. The 'Wywyth' interpretation would turn the "Billing Code" back-billing clause into a payment avoider's charter when it isn't (it's a practical articulation of regulatory requirement) because the interpretation would favour those who had paid least (or nothing).

It is not my interpretation, but one that the suppliers who agree to abide by the code use as substantiated by previous posts on this board. I suggest you do some more reading.

As someone who, based on the pedantic post earlier where you criticised my use of the words "effective clause", appears to pride themselves on their linguistic abilities, how do you interpret the words "additional payment"?

ETA - see also page 12 of the code:
http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publication/finish/43-code-of-practice-for-accurate-bills/412-the-code-of-practice-for-accurate-bills-back-billing-for-domestic-customers.html

9. The supplier has failed to send a bill to the customer or billing address during the previous 12 months, unless their express agreement with the individual customer allows for this

Scenario
2. A customer switched supplier on 8 December 2007, and signed up as a Direct Debit customer. The supplier created the account for the
customer, but did not set up a Direct Debit mandate and did not bill the customer until 25 March 2009.

Yes Because the supplier had not billed the customer during the previous
12 months. If the supplier had taken agreed Direct Debits and these had
covered the cost of energy consumed, then there would be no need to apply the back billing clause as there would not be any additional debt.

Again, my highlighting.

nPower

demystified wrote: »

Not sure if I should start a separate thread for this but...

I'm in the same situation. nPower have sent me a long letter freely admitting they have been reading my meter the wrong way around(!) for years and they say I owe them nearly £500!!!! :eek:

Basically they're quadrupling my monthly bill!!!! I'm on a low income so its basically a nightmare.

Do I have any recourse other than moaning on the phone and will they take any notice? Is there any point in switching suppliers and will nPower still chase me for the amount?!

Hi demystified,

If you'd like me to take a look into this and see what's happened and what we can do, I'd be more than happy to!

Pop your details in an email to forumresponse@npower.com and I'll get onto it.

Best wishes,

Adam

jalexa

Wywth wrote: »

<petty personal point scoring snipped> how do you interpret the words "additional payment"?

I consider "additional" a weasel word. What it means legally I have no idea (because "additional to what?" is not answered), therefore there is a level of uncertainty from which a customer-centric interpretation is a perfectly reasonable "starting point". I would very much like to read an Energy Ombudsman adjudication on that specific point.

I believe you make a fundamental mistake looking at the "General Guidance" (and scenario) flowing from a single clause in isolation. The "back-billing" clause is but one clause in a multi-clause "Billing Code", in place because of previous serial supplier failures subject to a complaint to Ofgem. A supplier failure to timeously and accurately bill breaches other requirements of the "Billing Code" (and their own T&Cs). Back-billing is simply one consequence of that supplier failure.

To give a specific and possibly on-topic example, it is a requirement of the Edf direct debit payment scheme that credit balances in excess of £150 at 'annual review' are "automatically" refunded. There are numerous posts (including implicitly this thread) that report Edf failure on that issue. Yet that failure is central to the supplier-centric interpretation of "additional" that you argue.

Anyway to restate something, (pedantic) interpretation is not that important, what matters is the supplier offer at the deadlock conclusion of the complaint process.

moneysavingmatt

FWIW received a phone call from EDF today.. they are adding a credit to my account of 8 months (actual reading from the bill divided by 20 and times 8)

They apologised profusely and say in almost all circumstances the longest I should go without a bill would be 12 months.

So after my account is settled will be seeing over £350 in my bank account.. score one for the little guy

Now if only they could get round to opening my gas account (new pipe)I started with them 15 months ago so i can merge the accounts and be a dual fuel customer I'll be completely happy they have already said they can already bill me for 12 but thats a different story for a different day.

Terrylw1

Ahem, proof above what actually happens...which is my understanding from within the supply market and not with EDF.

Then we have the Eon posts which also back this method.

IMO the ERA code is muddled anyway since there is a statement above the one regarding taking payments/credits into consideration that states no billing older than 12 months. These 2 points are contradictory.

Again, I will point out that Ofgem directed suppliers to back billing of 12 months for unbilled energy.ERA is a self regulated supplier code and as such it can't override a directive from an industry regulator, in the same way that adding a clause to your t&c's can't override the utility acts.

Ofgem instructed them all to come up with a billing code and pushed for an ombudsman. The supplier response was to create a "self protection" code that helped some customers, which the ombudsman can overrule very easily...which they know.

For instance, they state you should have alerted them to the problem. That's not always possible, such as the 2nd post on this thread (which I'm going to add info to later so the poster understands how the supplier has messed that up for them) since you would not see it unless you questioned your usage and performed a meter check if your own. How many 80 year holds are likely to do that? So, despite not having the contact they state they need, watch the supplier back peddle very quickly as soon as you start pointîng the finger of blame at them.

Terrylw1

Wywth wrote: »

Not the same situation at all. Yours relates to transposing of meter registry readings.

The meters are on your property, it is up to you to check the billed amounts against those meters.

Unless you have previously informed the supplier (over a year ago) of the error they were making, then you will have to pay for the energy you have consumed.

Suppliers will usually allow a current customer, when asked, to repay a large, unexpected bill over the period it was originally accumulated.

You will almost certainly be restricted from switching supplier until the existing debt is cleared.

The supplier has equal liability if not more in this situation, which I'll add to a response to the OP but a supplier cannot block a switch if the debt is Disputed or an accumulation cased by the supplier, known as Supplier Error Amount.

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

I agree with that. Anyway the appearance of "additional" in the "effective clause" simply begs the question "additional over what?". Wywth's somewhat perverse interpretation is not something I have seem substantiated by other posts on practical outcomes. If it ever was to it absolutely would merit testing by the Energy Ombudsman.

And there is another thing. From to time we get the "you've used it so you should pay" posts. The 'Wywyth' interpretation would turn the "Billing Code" back-billing clause into a payment avoider's charter when it isn't (it's a practical articulation of regulatory requirement) because the interpretation would favour those who had paid least (or nothing).

I totally agree.

The OP response when asking about back billing further proves that suppliers are active in "trying it on" until you mention your awareness of the codes which results in an immediate overturning of the back billing they have produced