Nightmare switch to EDF

backfoot

Wywth wrote: »

That being the case, you should ideally refrain from putting over your interpretation in a manner that could be taken as unequivocal fact to others who come here seeking advice and help

So your contrary interpretation wasn't put across in a similar unequivocal manner?

I have looked into the backbilling rules and given advice over a number of years to try and assist customers. I have subsequently tried to back up my original advice by looking at the context under which backbilling applies. i.e. the overall wording and an example of how your interpretation would lead to unequal and unfair treatment. Under the rules,if EDF don't resolve it within 12 months, they cannot catch up unbilled amounts, over 12 months old and will not appear on the account and any payment credits will be carried forward.

I think my advice is helpful to the OP and also tried to reassure them that they shouldn't unduly worry about EDF's dreadful handling of this situation. .

If you still think I am wrong,I am happy to be guided and learn from better advice, especially from experts or guidance ,say from the authors, test cases etc.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

So your contrary interpretation wasn't put across in a similar unequivocal manner?

That's you ticked off by a retired teacher I suspect, as I have also been.:D

I completely agree with your "...the context under which backbilling applies. i.e. the overall wording and an example of how your interpretation would lead to unequal and unfair treatment."

Of course who says the energy market is fair? Perhaps Ofgem in which case I will take my usual contrarian view.

I'm not of the view that the "briefing notes" and the "scenarios" are ambiguous. They are quite clear, but whether they are clearly right or clearly wrong I cannot say. Anyway IMO the "briefing notes" and "scenarios" are irrelevant, it is the Code rules which need to be tested and there there is more measured ambiguity on the issue, e.g the "principle" you quote.

Commentators would do well to recognise that the "Code" is the "Code of Practice for Accurate Billing", the need for which was imposed on the industry as a result of abysmal performance. The Code rules are only "ambiguous" in the face of particular and continuing abysmal performance of the following form - "the worse the supplier performance, the more it costs a certain category of customer". I do not believe that is a tenable interpretation.

Yes there is a hint of ambiguity but that is fine, such ambiguity is there to be tested, at £350 a time via the complaints procedure. Bring it on.

Wywth

backfoot wrote: »

So your contrary interpretation wasn't put across in a similar unequivocal manner?

Unlike you, I don't agree there is any ambiguity in the code of practice, especially in the clause you referred to originally, which supports my post.

backfoot

Your interpretation is utter nonsense. The ERA have written the rules to deal with common situations and highlight 5 digit readings as a specific scenario. They have done this as the 12 month rule applies to all customers.

Your reading of the word debt is incorrect, interpreting it as a balance on the account. Such a balance is called a debit or credit balance, depending on whether payments or other credits had been received in relation to the billed (debt) amounts.

In the current situation, EDF have not been billing for the gas, due to the 5 digit scenario. When they eventually sort it out, they will catch up the error by creating a debt for the previously unbilled consumption.

The backbilling rules limit that debt under the 12 month rule.

I can see why you were previously confused, but sadly the point isn't sinking in despite it being explained.As pointed out,your interpretation would lead to anomolies between the treatment of customers paying by direct Debit/Standing order and quarterly billed in arrears.

The OP can take their choice of the advice given.

Wywth

Take a look at clause 9.2, and the OP can decide for themselves who is talking utter nonsense

.. although I'm sure they will still prefer to accept the spin you are attempting to put on it.

patgc

Thanks everyone for their comments and suggestions. As said, I have done as much as I can to resolve the matter, and still no call from EDF as promised on Tuesday, so I will leave the situation as it is, let them sort it out. I have spent enough time and energy trying to sort it out and they are making me angry, so enough is enough. If it takes them long enough, I might be able to invoke the Back Billing legislation.