Backbilled over 12 months ago?

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

I think we are missing the point of the OP's query.

As I understand it, BG sent a final bill on 30/03/2013 which the OP doesn't believe he received. On those grounds(i.e. non-receipt of bill) the OP thinks that the back-billing code applies.

Somewhere buried in Ofgem's regulations it states that a bill is valid if on the company's records and claimed non-receipt of the bill does not alter that situation.

If that were not the case, then the 80 million? bills produced each year would need to be sent recorded delivery and if we managed to avoid receipt of that recorded delivery bill by, say, going abroad, the bill would not be valid.


So the position is that the OP left BG last year and the final bill has not been paid in full. Like any debt, the company have six years to pursue payment, similarly a customer has six years to reclaim any overpayment. It doesn't matter if the company or customer made a mistake, payment/repayment has to be made.

There is a current article on MSE urging customers to reclaim credit if they moved in the last 6 years.

The OP should read the back billing code themselves. If they then feel they have a claim under that code they should make a complaint to their supplier. If they are unhappy with the supplier's response they should take it to the Energy Ombudsman.

If I genuinely did not receive a bill (which was relevant to the application of the back billing code) that my supplier said they sent I would certainly be complaining and challenging their evidence that they sent it, especially when the supplier made other mistakes at the same time (i.e. the failure to collect the last payment). Can the supplier be certain they sent the bill? Can they be certain they did not make a mistake in assuming they sent a bill just as they made a mistake in not taking the final payment? If their evidence did not convince me then I would take my case to the Ombudsman.

That said, if the supplier can convince the Ombudsman they did indeed send the bill then the Ombudsman may well rule in the supplier's favour, and the reason the bill was not received will remain unknown. However even then nothing would have been lost by complaining other than some time and the irritation of not being believed by the Ombudsman.

If the OP feels he has a genuine complaint, he should make it. He should certainly not believe his supplier is infallible without some evidence. Nor should he be discouraged because of some apparent text buried in Ofgem's regulations saying "that a bill is valid if on the company's records". The Ombudsman should judge on the merits of the case.

And just for completeness, if the OP does not feel he has a genuine complaint he should obviously not complain.

naedanger

chanz4 wrote: »

op would be fully liable, as technically if the bill was produced in march 2013 they have kept to the billing code. Not collecting the debt is a totally different issue and is the same as say a credit card not been paid

The key bit being "if the bill was produced in March 2013".

The OP is entitled to challenge this point if he does not believe it.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

naedanger wrote: »

The key bit being "if the bill was produced in March 2013".

The OP is entitled to challenge this point if he does not believe it.

Challenge how? BG have only to state that they've sent it. That it arrives or not isn't down to them.

System

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

Worth a read. That said, this part of the OP's post is a little strange:

'we're sorry, we didnt take your last direct debit so your final bill hasnt been paid...after sent your final bill on 30.03.2013 we should have taken one last Direct Debit...a glitch with our system...there's a balance of £480 to pay'

Is BG saying that the OP had a DD of £480 per month which the final bill assumed would be paid; he was billed for a final bill debit balance of £480 which they intended to recover by DD or what?

naedanger

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Challenge how?

By asking the supplier for their evidence that they produced and sent the bill. And by asking for evidence of the robustness of their processes and for their conviction that they are not mistaken. I would also ask why if they had good procedures they never took the final payment or sent a reminder.

BG have only to state that they've sent it.

If that is their only response, i.e. we sent it but have no evidence to show that is the case, then I would expect the Ombudsman to uphold the complaint since BG offered no evidence to substantiate their claim of having sent a bill.

That it arrives or not isn't down to them.

Perhaps. But the Ombudsman does not require the customer to prove beyond doubt he is right. The Ombudsman has to decide on the balance of probability and on the evidence. If the supplier does not give any evidence, as you seem to be suggesting, then they are putting forward a very weak case, given they are the ones who made other mistakes i.e. not collecting dd and not issuing reminders.

I suspect BG will either offer some evidence or concede that they may not have sent the bill. If BG do offer some evidence then it will be up to the OP to challenge how good that evidence is.

I am not saying the OP will win. I am saying that they should complain if they believe they have a case. Ultimately the Ombudsman will decide based on the evidence who to believe. Without seeing both sides of the story we cannot decide. I know there seem to be a few posters here who automatically seem to believe the suppliers over their customers but I would hope the Ombudsman is more impartial.

Andy_WSM

Back billing doesn't apply here on 2 grounds.

BG state a bill was sent - they provide the date it was produced and the amount, we have no grounds to dispute this. The op must have known a large amount was outstanding if they'd received previous bills as it's highly unlikely this is a months bill.

Op has not made any efforts to obtain any missing bill - for back billing to apply the op needs to have made reasonable efforts to obtain a bill.

This is simply a matter of claiming a debt, which BG can do for up to 6 years after the debt became due.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

naedanger wrote: »

By asking the supplier for their evidence that they produced and sent the bill. And by asking for evidence of the robustness of their processes and for their conviction that they are not mistaken. I would also ask why if they had good procedures they never took the final payment or sent a reminder.


If that is their only response, i.e. we sent it but have no evidence to show that is the case, then I would expect the Ombudsman to uphold the complaint since BG offered no evidence to substantiate their claim of having sent a bill.


Perhaps. But the Ombudsman does not require the customer to prove beyond doubt he is right. The Ombudsman has to decide on the balance of probability and on the evidence. If the supplier does not give any evidence, as you seem to be suggesting, then they are putting forward a very weak case, given they are the ones who made other mistakes i.e. not collecting dd and not issuing reminders.

I suspect BG will either offer some evidence or concede that they may not have sent the bill. If BG do offer some evidence then it will be up to the OP to challenge how good that evidence is.

I am not saying the OP will win. I am saying that they should complain if they believe they have a case. Ultimately the Ombudsman will decide based on the evidence who to believe. Without seeing both sides of the story we cannot decide. I know there seem to be a few posters here who automatically seem to believe the suppliers over their customers but I would hope the Ombudsman is more impartial.

I'm not saying BG should give no evidence. I'm saying they just need to say they sent it. Indeed, they've already said this. Otherwise people up and down the country would bin their bills, claim they haven't arrived and hold out for a year until the free energy clock starts ticking.

BG don't need to prove the "robustness of their processes". It's got naff all to do with the OP. They don't even dispute they've used the energy! I can't see why you're suggesting a complaint to the ombudsman is appropriate here. It should be nipped in the bud far, far before then - by the OP paying for what they've consumed like the rest of us have to!

naedanger

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Back billing doesn't apply here on 2 grounds.

BG state a bill was sent - they provide the date it was produced and the amount, we have no grounds to dispute this. The op must have known a large amount was outstanding if they'd received previous bills as it's highly unlikely this is a months bill.

Op has not made any efforts to obtain any missing bill - for back billing to apply the op needs to have made reasonable efforts to obtain a bill.

This is simply a matter of claiming a debt, which BG can do for up to 6 years after the debt became due.

If the OP wishes to dispute that the two grounds you give as fact are true then he can do so.

Firstly he is entitled to ask BG to substantiate their claim to have issued a bill. If he did not receive the bill then that is reason to question whether it was ever sent. (If BG cannot give any evidence for why they believe it was sent then that is grounds to dispute it.)

Secondly, if he was unaware he owed more money, then he is entitled to explain why he was unaware of this.

It is the Ombudsman's role to decide what is fact where there is dispute. He will do this by listening to both sides and deciding based on the evidence and the balance of probability.

If the OP believes they have a genuine complaint then they should complain (but not otherwise).

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

The OP should read the back billing code themselves. If they then feel they have a claim under that code they should make a complaint to their supplier. If they are unhappy with the supplier's response they should take it to the Energy Ombudsman.

If I genuinely did not receive a bill (which was relevant to the application of the back billing code) that my supplier said they sent I would certainly be complaining and challenging their evidence that they sent it, especially when the supplier made other mistakes at the same time (i.e. the failure to collect the last payment). Can the supplier be certain they sent the bill? Can they be certain they did not make a mistake in assuming they sent a bill just as they made a mistake in not taking the final payment? If their evidence did not convince me then I would take my case to the Ombudsman.

That said, if the supplier can convince the Ombudsman they did indeed send the bill then the Ombudsman may well rule in the supplier's favour, and the reason the bill was not received will remain unknown. However even then nothing would have been lost by complaining other than some time and the irritation of not being believed by the Ombudsman.

If the OP feels he has a genuine complaint, he should make it. He should certainly not believe his supplier is infallible without some evidence. Nor should he be discouraged because of some apparent text buried in Ofgem's regulations saying "that a bill is valid if on the company's records". The Ombudsman should judge on the merits of the case.

And just for completeness, if the OP does not feel he has a genuine complaint he should obviously not complain.

I think we are at cross-purposes here.

The OP wrote:

Now, i dont remember receiving a final bill and I question if they sent me one. I wonder if this would be a case of 'backbilling' and i could therefore refuse to pay

Let us assume that the OP is correct and he didn't receive a final bill, why would that come under the back-billing provision? Or if you consider it does come under the 12 month back-billing provision, what period are you suggesting should be 'written -off'?

The account closed in March 2013. He is not saying he didn't have a bill in the 12 months before March 2013. Indeed he doesn't appear to be disputing he owes £480; he merely wants to escape payment of a genuine debt.

The Billing Code states:

Customer’s responsibilities

Customers should pay for energy used and the Code is not intended as a means for avoiding payments. Customers have an obligation to assist suppliers and can expect to pay for all energy consumed

It seems to me a cut and dried case of an outstanding bill that requires payment.

If the stance you appear to be taking is followed, we could all ignore final bills and claim we had not received that bill; and the 12 month back billing rule would apply.

naedanger

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

I'm not saying BG should give no evidence. I'm saying they just need to say they sent it. Indeed, they've already said this. Otherwise people up and down the country would bin their bills, claim they haven't arrived and hold out for a year until the free energy clock starts ticking.

And all suppliers need to do is say they sent a bill previously to bin the back billing code. How many suppliers would be happy not to chase a bill for a year? If the supplier was saying they had sent a bill and half a dozen chasers then their case would be stronger.

BG don't need to prove the "robustness of their processes". It's got naff all to do with the OP.

If BG's process for sending out bills is not robust how can they be sure they did indeed send the bill? So the robustness of their processes is very relevant to the case.

They don't even dispute they've used the energy! I can't see why you're suggesting a complaint to the ombudsman is appropriate here. It should be nipped in the bud far, far before then - by the OP paying for what they've consumed like the rest of us have to!

I am saying that if the complainant believes he has a legitimate complaint then they should make it. There is a good process for determining whether the complaint is valid. He should use it.

It must be better that the ultimate decision on the validity of the complaint is made by someone impartial and with both parties' full side of the story. (If his complaint is unreasonable the Ombudsman should reject it and if it is valid he should uphold it.)

I don't believe we should be deciding the truth of the case.