What do you do if the Ombudsman gets it wrong??

Terrylw1

Well that's very suspicious to me.

You've got several customer readings prior to that fictitious bill. They are claiming that you submitted a reading that was lower than your previous ones. I don't believe for a second that anyone would wipe out previous readings and wind the bill back like that on your say so...they would insist on a meter reader checking it.

It would also wipe out a previous Actual reading.

The zero makes no sense at all. Billing to zero would either credit you back 75000 units or bill you up 25000 units. Billing to zero would also mean that the 75000 units would bill back in the next bill.

How have they got around all that in the bills?

A supplier billing to a zero read in an estimate is a big mistake.

Are any of these bills amended ones where bills are getting wiped out?

On the subject of the ombudsman, I find their behaviour poor in this case. Npower submitted further evidence after 28 days (or did the ombudsman give a longer deadline?) so it shouldn't have been considered as the Final Decision had already been made to find in your favour.

Now, the ombudsman has taken that bill as evidence that you caused problems without even obtaining your view.

So, its clear they are biased to Npower in your case.

It sounds like you need to make a complaint about the handling of your case.

richpb7

Thanks for all the comments. It does sound like I should challenge, so I've started drafting a letter to the Ombudsman, copying in Npower as well. Checking back on dates, Npower did challenge the ruling after the 28 days, but I'd not accepted at that point - I had asked the Ombudsman to clarify one small part of their rather complicated decision, and was still waiting for them to reply to me. I know now that they're pretty poor at communicating, but back then I was a bit more naive.

I don't seem to have any amended bills.

There is one anomaly I've turned up though. The May bill from 2011 - which has some crucial readings in it - has never been digitally available. I had to request a paper copy in the end. I wonder now though whether or not anyone else can access this - perhaps the Npower complaints team and even the Ombudsman rely too much on digital these days. If they've never seen this bill, with its crucial Actual reading on, perhaps that's where all the confusion springs from. I intend to send copies of this crucial bill, together with the fictitious one which states the same meter reading but with a very different date, as evidence and see what happens next.

undaunted

I couldn't entirely follow what was happening from your posts. The process would basically be

You complain to Ombudsman
They (not actually an Ombudsman) consider the file & produce a provisional conclusion
You & Npower have a chance to make any further representations & ask for it to be looked at by Ombudsman
Ombudsman produces a final conclusion
You have 28 days to accept it or not as you wish (Npower are obliged to accept it)

If you dont want to accept the Ombudsmans finding you are free to pursue any other avenue you wish (eg the Courts, suggest Mediation, complain further to Npower - for all the good that will do you - etc)

If you feel there are reasonable grounds to complain to the Ombudsman about their handling you can do so. (see their website for more info)

richpb7

I should have come here months ago - all this great knowledge and advice :-)

Could drown you all with even more charts, documents and spreadsheets, months of my work trying to untangle all this, but I think I know what to do now. Will challenge the Ombudsman's decision directly, and if that doesn't work consider legal action.

Thanks again!

jalexa

richpb7 wrote: »

I think I know what to do now. Will challenge the Ombudsman's decision directly, and if that doesn't work consider legal action.

It is my understanding that you can't challenge a 'final decision' directly, however AFAIUI there may be an avenue to challenge process failure. That could include relying on a submission of challengeable provenance.

Having said that, and relying entirely on your graph, I am not convinced that the "fake" documentation could (should) have made a fundamental difference. Neither do I think the "nil or 100" reading is directly relevant, though it is a proven indication of a fundamental billing system issue.

To restate what I said earlier the principal NPower failure appears to me to be the failure to manage the account direct debit adequacy prior to the "hike" in the face of submitted customer reads, in breach of their own description of the payment scheme and (arguably) in breach of "Back Billing sub-clause 7".

At this stage, if you have not already done so, I recommend you make £10 Subject Access Requests of both NPower and the Energy Ombudsman.

richpb7

I think the key phrase from the ruling is this:

In npower’s representations, it considers the Code would not apply in this case as it states that the amended statement issued on 15 February 2012 reduced the outstanding balance on your account from £1,902.74 to £583.93.

That's what the Ombudsman quotes as to why they changed their mind, and that "the estimated readings that were used were actually overestimates rather than underestimates." As can be seen from the chart though, this is patently not true. The estimates are either very close to usage, or one of the two very, very low early ones.

That figure above, the £1,902.74 is a direct result of the fake bill - that debt never actually existed, it seemed to be an internal !!!!-up after I complained because they transposed the meter reading from November 2009 to October 2011.

I know the timing is hard to get your head round, but the chart clearly shows a stable meter reading pattern and a clear rising debt due to low direct debits, all well documented by the bills I have. Then all of a sudden this very weird bill appears on the 13th of Feb 2012 with a huge hike to £1,902.74, which is suddenly replaced by a new bill 2 days later which drops it again. Isn't that odd? They create a bill out of nowhere, which is based on incorrect readings that conflict with every other reading, and then correct it almost instantly showing a massive drop in charges. They submit this as evidence that their rebilling has cut what I owe.

richpb7

P.S. What's a Subject Access Request?

jalexa

richpb7 wrote: »

P.S. What's a Subject Access Request?

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/personal_information/how_manage/access_info.aspx

richpb7

P.P.S. What not might be immediately apparent is why I'm so like a dog with a bone on this, but it's partly that big drop. The real reason the debt was dropping quickly was that Npower were squeezing me dry by this point (and they'd not even done their worst yet), but they had the cheek to suggest that it was their rebilling that made the difference. They'd obviously made a big mistake internally with meter readings, claimed it was in my benefit, and got the Ombudsman to agree. And all the time they were taking more and more money from me.

Here's another juicy titbit from the reams of paperwork. A letter from Npower's Head of Customer Relations, dated 3 May 2012, which states that I'm using £242 pounds of electricity every month. This contrasts with an Npower bill dated 19 April 2012 which states I use £598.54 over the entire year! This is their justification for raising my monthly payment to £332 per month.

So four months after I first officially complain about how badly things have been handled in the past, Npower are busy screwing up my present.

Terrylw1

All bills produced by a billing system are available at all times on your account to supply staff. So, the complaints team can see it.

The only time this isn't true is:

- they move systems so its on a microfiche style system and they keep X years worth.

- its a manual handwritten bill to do something to get round the system. An example being, billing to rates that aren't available and dumping a debt value onto the account.

- the bills are old and are archived to a microfiche style system.