Swalec - readjusted bill - huge debt!

caz_cardiff87

Hello all,

First time poster here but i’ve frequently visited the forum over the last year or so!

My partner and I are on the economy 7 tarriff with swalec. Back in October 2012, we received a bill of over 600 pounds. We pay quarterly and it’s normally between 150-200 (can’t remember exactly how much off the top of my head) so we were really puzzled as to how we had got such a huge bill, especially as both of us work and are rarely in during weekdays.

I phoned customer services and after some investigation the advisor discovered that a meter reading had been submitted by their meter man a year previous (Oct 2011) had caused them to recalculate our bills, the figures submitted did not fall in line with the subsequent reading I had submitted the following April and so they adjusted the bill again. I do remember recieving a letter claiming we were 300 pounds in credit around that time so we hadn’t recieved any bills for 2 quarters.

The advisor asked me to check our readings and confirm the serial number on our meter, which i did. It was then he discovered that the figures submitted by the swalec meter man were incorrect and had been the cause of the huge bill. He submitted the case to another department to see if we could get a reduction via their customer charter and although he couldn’t say for sure, he agreed it was ridiculous no one had mentioned this mistake to us for over a year and seemed confident our case would be resolved but if i wanted to make a complaint then i should do so. So i did!

2 weeks later I recieved an e-mail stating we would have to pay the full amount and the usual offer of a payment plan, we’re very sorry etc etc. I argued the case and it was passed on to their corporate customer relations team. They took 50 pounds off the bill (goodwill apparently) leaving us with around 550 left to pay. I had by then, made a couple of payments totalling 80 pound but argued that i was struggling to manage the debt even with a payment plan as we are looking to move out of the property in the next 18 months and would prefer not to carry over any utility debts. To pay off the debt in time meant the payment plan would entail payments of 100 pounds a month!

I didn’t want to refuse to pay anything as I didn’t want to give them any ammunition against us so here we are... over 8 weeks on and still no payment plan has been made even though I had agreed to one and have made further payments in an attempt to reduce the bill.

Today, my parents who have been aware of the situation offered up the rest of the money to clear the balance. Although a great relief, I still want to fight this and see if anything can be done. I’m always cautious about refusing to pay because I don’t want swalec to use it against me should this be taken further. I had e-mailed citizens advice but received no reply and am really unsure how to take further action against them, especially now we have paid the money, I’m worried someone will turn around and say there’s nothing they can do.

Anyone else had a similar experience or can offer up any advice on who we can contact to help fight this??

JC_Derby

so what were the readings?

caz_cardiff87

I don’t have them to hand right now but it seems that the meter man mixed up the day and night readings. Kinda of irrelevant, the fact is swalec admits it was their mistake yet i still have to pay. I read about the 12 month backdating thing and companies shouldn’t be doing it if they are at fault and their customer charter says pretty much the same thing yet they don’t seem to be sticking to it unless i’m completely missing something, everytime i ask all i get is a huge breakdown of what bills i recieved compared against their readjusted bills.... and to be honest i can’t make head nor tail of it, just loads of numbers and no real explanation other than ‘we messed up but you gotta pay it'

sheffield_lad

So it sounds like you have used it. Back billing is when you have not received a bill not if the readings were transposed.

Pay the bill off and use the experience for the next property. Always record your opening reads and take regular updates. Even though companies employ meter readers it's your account. Gl

caz_cardiff87

just found them in an email i recieved...

I have detailed below the readings we have obtained, which we subsequently changed.

Date of Reading Day Reading Night Reading

07 April 2011 6017 3631
10 October 2011 7871 4345
05 April 2012 7615 4938

As you will notice, in April 2012 the meter reading for the day rate was lower than in October 2011.

They are basically using this 12 month thing and going from april 2012... not october 2011 when the meter man submitted the wrong readings... i am so confused with it all now.

caz_cardiff87

it wasn’t backbilling.... they readjusted all my bills over the last year because of an incorrect meter reading they took... They sent us bills for the last year, all recalculated and completely different to the ones we received.

The point is, i’m now paying for someone elses incompetence and i don’t care how they want to dress it up, the principle of it is its not right, and they can’t just whack a huge bill through our door and expect us to be ok with it.

I think your right tho, i have no idea if we can argue it anymore

jalexa

caz_cardiff87 wrote: »

... I argued the case and it was passed on to their corporate customer relations team. They took 50 pounds off the bill (goodwill apparently) leaving us with around 550 left to pay. I had by then, made a couple of payments totalling 80 pounds ....

Please don't take this personally - it is mainly intended for others - but "you was duped" by a highly skilled customer relations team who's job it is to achieve a "happily duped" (or "satisfied") customer.

When a Complaint goes to final review the customer has to choose either to accept (or not accept) that the issue is resolved. You appear to have implicitly accepted resolution, first by already making payments and then accepting a goodwill payment. This has weakened your case going forward.

Regulars here will recognise that the "probable cause" is/was day/night reading transposition. When that occurred is not clear though it would appear that Swalec believe it "ended up right".

You need to decide what you want. Firstly do you agree that the readings ended up the right way round? If so do you agree that any unbilled energy supplied more than 12 months prior was "waived" under the customer charter provisions?

You cannot consider reopening the case (assuming it is possible) without clear answers to the above, hence the last posters request for readings.

Before you do anything else you need to take a photograph of your meter and identify which register is updating during the day and confirm the other register updates at night. Then you need to identify if the most recent bill readings are close to the actual relevant meter readings. Then post for further advice.

macman

Unless you dispute the actual readings, and the back billing code does not apply (which it does not in this case), then yes, you do have to pay for the energy used, regardless of whose error it is.
If the revised calculation had produced a credit of £550 rather than a debit, would you not expect the supplier to credit it?
The solution is to submit readings at least every 3 months, and check them against your billing-the supplier only has to read the meters every two years. And of course to check bills based on agent readings against meter actuals-which would have revealed the tranposition a year ago.

jalexa

howee wrote: »

Back billing is when you have not received a bill not if the readings were transposed.

Not convinced that is right.

The most recent SSE Customer Charter I have (failed to download a recent copy:() says "... We will not charge you for any additional energy you used more than a year before we discovered the mistake".

IMO, "we will not charge" is the operative phrase. A lawyer may differ but that that would have been a bone fide claim to take to the Energy Ombudsman (had the OP not been "duped" into accepting £50).

jalexa

macman wrote: »

Unless ... the back billing code does not apply (which it does not in this case)...

Why do you say that?

macman

Bad sentence. I meant to say that the OP cannot, on the face of the facts given above, invoke the back billing code to avoid payment. Unless I misread the post.