We want to pay for our gas, but can't!!!

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

Its 6 years for the grid, what you have to remember is that the grid is not regulated the same and as the op had made no attempt to pay or bring it to the grids attention that it has no supplier but was using gas. Theft is treated different and can be applied right back.

Most of the meters we find are bought of ebay, and if found we prosecute and bill right back. If gas is been used but not paid for its theft from the network, if shipperless. They take a number equal to the sites AQ and work out the kwhs

So, they have a guess the same as a supplier really since AQ's & EAC's are only as good as they data fed into them and don't always come out the same given weather changes.

I guess it just has to be a fair & justifiable bill since the distributors can still be disputed in a court.

In terms of governance, distributors were brought into the BSC to prevent them operating out of control of the industry, which was an issue years ago. This part won't help the customer though.

Ofgem do govern distributors since several SLC's are directly against them. In terms if back billing, the ERA code obviously doesn't apply as they are not in it, but the Ofgem back billing code could still apply since they have a responsibility to the customer. In theft cases, fair enough, they should pay the lot...however, whilst its unfair, the gas distributors put supplies in that they don't prevent this issue...part if me thinks they should be copping for consumption as its their poor management that causes it and if they want this to change, they know how to send in a proposal.

jalexa

chanz4 wrote: »

... as the op had made no attempt to pay or bring it to the grids attention that it has no supplier but was using gas. Theft is treated different and can be applied right back...

... If gas is been used but not paid for its theft from the network, if shipperless...

What is it about "...they advised us to speak to the National Grid to get registered, and then go back to EDF. After a lot of hoop jumping, we finally got signed up, and started paying monthly direct debits to Edf..." you don't understand?

"Theft" is only alleged theft until proven in court. What is it about "justice" you fail to understand?

Are these understandings typical of revenue protection?

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

Most of the meters we find are bought of ebay, and if found we prosecute and bill right back. If gas is been used but not paid for its theft from the network, if shipperless.

If illegally metered, yes. However, if the meter was fit previously, it wouldn't be as serious as the current occupant didn't initiate the theft and it would be a matter for the court to determine their participation as a knowing party. Since any occupant who determined this has to approach a supplier to rectify it, the court isn't going to let them pursue a case for theft when they have taken the correct steps to resolve it. If they sit back a long time...that's a different story.

If the meter is a one shot from years ago and its shipper less, its not theft since its been fit by the appropriate parties and the failure lies with who fit it as to why its shipper less. Whilst a customer might have been told to register in that circumstance, they won't get their money back under theft as they caused it...again, if the customer sits back a long time, it changes slightly.

Do or did they do one shots until more recently? It was a frequent problem in elec years ago with illegal fuses being fit or tails connected by developers when they shouldn't.

Its an interesting issue. What do distributors charge for instance? Is there some legislation on the maximum level?

In terms of elec, I would imagine they easily got away with it as the suppliers were not interested and the distributors had no clue how to spot it unless it was from a visit.

I still wonder why this scenario exists since they stopped it on elec 12 years ago. I know the gas industry has always been behind the elec one for many reasons but is it a safety requirement? If so, they could still mirror the elec process by a supplier registering.

Man_Overboard_2

Several years ago, I moved into a flat which was part of a conversion of a very old multiple-occupied building

I tried and tried to get myself registered as the bill-payer, but got nowhere, and for more than three years I received no fuel bills, and made no payments

Meter readers called at regular intervals, but could make no sense of the meter numbers (all the meters, for all the flats, were located in a single small room)

On each occasion, the meter reader reported the problem to his/her superiors

Just two weeks before I moved out, I received a letter from British Gas, and I replied by phone

I got through to some kind of manager, and she agreed to waive all charges if I would tell her the numbers of the meters which supplied my flat

I supplied the required information, and heard no more

Result!

chanz4

Terrylw1 wrote: »

If illegally metered, yes. However, if the meter was fit previously, it wouldn't be as serious as the current occupant didn't initiate the theft and it would be a matter for the court to determine their participation as a knowing party. Since any occupant who determined this has to approach a supplier to rectify it, the court isn't going to let them pursue a case for theft when they have taken the correct steps to resolve it. If they sit back a long time...that's a different story.

If the meter is a one shot from years ago and its shipper less, its not theft since its been fit by the appropriate parties and the failure lies with who fit it as to why its shipper less. Whilst a customer might have been told to register in that circumstance, they won't get their money back under theft as they caused it...again, if the customer sits back a long time, it changes slightly.

Do or did they do one shots until more recently? It was a frequent problem in elec years ago with illegal fuses being fit or tails connected by developers when they shouldn't.

Its an interesting issue. What do distributors charge for instance? Is there some legislation on the maximum level?

In terms of elec, I would imagine they easily got away with it as the suppliers were not interested and the distributors had no clue how to spot it unless it was from a visit.

I still wonder why this scenario exists since they stopped it on elec 12 years ago. I know the gas industry has always been behind the elec one for many reasons but is it a safety requirement? If so, they could still mirror the elec process by a supplier registering.

The way they get around it is disconnection at the road, pending remedy eg payment if they refuse.

Leaving old meters behind is something that used to happen, as ng engineers used to say they were not paid to take them away, they wouldn't be charged with theft but the grid would bill them or speak to the previous known supplier about taking it back although they dont like to.

Electric is disconnection to the property, and is not upto a supplier to say who has done it.

chanz4

Man_Overboard wrote: »

Several years ago, I moved into a flat which was part of a conversion of a very old multiple-occupied building

I tried and tried to get myself registered as the bill-payer, but got nowhere, and for more than three years I received no fuel bills, and made no payments

Meter readers called at regular intervals, but could make no sense of the meter numbers (all the meters, for all the flats, were located in a single small room)

On each occasion, the meter reader reported the problem to his/her superiors

Just two weeks before I moved out, I received a letter from British Gas, and I replied by phone

I got through to some kind of manager, and she agreed to waive all charges if I would tell her the numbers of the meters which supplied my flat

I supplied the required information, and heard no more

Result!

if one meter to all, your landlord is liable it maybe that he has also installed sub meters after the main so don't be supprised if your l/lord does not bill you once they chase him.

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

The way they get around it is disconnection at the road, pending remedy eg payment if they refuse.

Leaving old meters behind is something that used to happen, as ng engineers used to say they were not paid to take them away, they wouldn't be charged with theft but the grid would bill them or speak to the previous known supplier about taking it back although they dont like to.

Electric is disconnection to the property, and is not upto a supplier to say who has done it.

I guess that at least forces a new connection but that does mean that the distributor has been paid twice for a connection which is unscrupulous behaviour. Or would they perform a free new connection? Does the UA allow for full disconnection, think I've seen something about that before with illegal activities. It just bothers me that a new customer could move in and have a large additional new connection fee extracted from them.

If the supplier is registered, I don't think the distributor would be the correct party to disconnect anymore. The customer could be paying the supplier who have no need for a warrant so the distributor would be impacting that suppliers registration period. The supplier has a duty of care to that customer. Have you ever seen this?

chanz4

Gas isn't essential, unlike electric so are allowed to cut it off. I do cut off at the roads if people don't play ball and are unable to get to the bottom of it. If disconnected at the road a new connection fee is payable, but after all they will have to rrelay at the t on the road.

If it has a supplier its different, although as long as the supplier notifys social services if their is a theft no come back on the suppliers. The UA allows supplier to disconnect if they are not able to remedy the situation.

Terrylw1

If it was a previous shipper less site that is now registered though and the customer is paying the supplier, the distributor would have difficulty in disconnecting for their lost energy they may have billed for.

I don't know how that one would play out but I would assume it would viewed as a closed debt in a similar manner to a customer who has switched away.

The supplier won't be interested in helping the distributor disconnect under that circumstance given they are happy with the customers payments and would lose out of profit.

How would the distributor handle that? I doubt this happens on elec now though given the process change in July 2000, however some sites continued to appear as they had not been mass registered to the old host supplier as part of that industry change.

chanz4

It all depends if its shipperless due to be de-appointed , or if the supply was put in without permission. If the second they still have a right to disconnect.