Backbilled over 12 months ago?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

naedanger wrote: »

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.


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.


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.

The corollary of your argument if anyone receives a bill they can bin it, and ask the supplier to "prove the robustness of their systems" before it's paid. Madness.

In this country there is a duty to pay once you've taken service of something. It doesn't depend on an invoice physically reaching you, or the robustness of any systems. What's known in this case is the OP has used the energy and hasn't paid. It seems pretty straightforward what they should do to me.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

I think we are at cross-purposes here.

The OP wrote:

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 unbilled period i.e. the period starting from the end of last billed period (whenever that was) until the account was closed. This is all more than 12 months ago.

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:

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

If the last bill was sent within 12 months of the unpaid usage I agree. But I believe the OP may be disputing that this bill was ever sent.

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.

No. All I am saying is the supplier needs to provide, on the balance of probability, evidence that they did indeed send the bill. They can easily do this. The supplier can easily get this evidence by issuing another chaser bill. Most suppliers do this. To not send any chasers for 12 months seems suspect to me.

The stance you appear to be taking is that all suppliers can circumvent the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills. And unlike the suppliers (who can easily get evidence of sending a bill e.g. proof of postage in cases where they have to issue reminders) it is virtually impossible for a customer to prove a negative - i.e. that the bill was never sent.

naedanger

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

The corollary of your argument if anyone receives a bill they can bin it, and ask the supplier to "prove the robustness of their systems" before it's paid Madness.

No they just need to evidence on the balance of probability that they sent it. How they do this is up to them.

In this country there is a duty to pay once you've taken service of something. It doesn't depend on an invoice physically reaching you, or the robustness of any systems. What's known in this case is the OP has used the energy and hasn't paid. It seems pretty straightforward what they should do to me.

The OP should be given the correct factual position if that is what they are seeking. Your above paragraph is a simplification of the legal position. If you are giving it as your moral view that is fine but I think you are morally obliged to highlight that it is not the full legal position.

Cardew

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

We are not 'deciding' anything! The OP asked for 'help and advice' and that is what he is getting.

naedanger wrote: »

No. All I am saying is the supplier needs to provide, on the balance of probability, evidence that they did indeed send the bill. They can easily do this. The supplier can easily get this evidence by issuing another chaser bill.

The stance you appear to be taking is that all suppliers can circumvent the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills. And unlike the suppliers (who can easily get evidence of sending a bill e.g. proof of postage in cases where they have to issue reminders) it is virtually impossible for a customer to prove a negative - i.e. that the bill was never sent.

All energy suppliers operate under a licence. Are you seriously suggesting that they would lie and 'circumvent the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills.'

Who in the management would give such an instruction that would be clearly illegal? Discovery would certainly lead to a prosecution and a custodial sentence.

Which technician would re-write the computer program and be part of a conspiracy to defraud?

You might recall that Severn Trent lied on a minor technical issue(falsifying leakage data figures). They were fined over £40 million and prosecuted.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/severn-water-trust-ofwat-data

That Severn Trent saga came to light because of a whistle blower. Do you think BG with its many thousands of employees would not have a similar whistle blower?

Talk about a conspiracy theory!!!

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

naedanger wrote: »

No they just need to evidence on the balance of probability that they sent it. How they do this is up to them.


The OP should be given the correct factual position if that is what they are seeking. Your above paragraph is a simplification of the legal position. If you are giving it as your moral view that is fine but I think you are morally obliged to highlight that it is not the full legal position.

It's not my moral view. It's my advice to the OP. Trying to get around this by taking it to the ombudsman will only end up costing them time, and maybe even money.

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

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.

You appear to have concluded(on what evidence??) that BG had discovered that the bill was not fully paid a year or more ago, and thus should have sent reminders/chasers.


In the original post the OP stated that he had just(Sept 2014) had a letter explaining that they 'should have taken one more DD payment'.


As said earlier a bill can be chased for 6 years, and refunds sought for the same period.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

We are not 'deciding' anything! The OP asked for 'help and advice' and that is what he is getting.

People are saying as fact things that are potentially in dispute e.g. that the final bill was sent.

All energy suppliers operate under a licence. Are you seriously suggesting that they would lie and 'circumvent the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills.'

Are you saying suppliers have never said something that turned out not to be true. It has certainly happened on more than one occasion with me.

Who in the management would give such an instruction that would be clearly illegal? Discovery would certainly lead to a prosecution and a custodial sentence.

Which technician would re-write the computer program and be part of a conspiracy to defraud?

You might recall that Severn Trent lied on a minor technical issue(falsifying leakage data figures). They were fined over £40 million and prosecuted.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/severn-water-trust-ofwat-data

That Severn Trent saga came to light because of a whistle blower. Do you think BG with its many thousands of employees would not have a similar whistle blower?

Talk about a conspiracy theory!!!

Who said that management are doing this on a systematic basis? But that some customer service rep jumps to a conclusion and says in a letter a bill was sent when it was not can certainly happen.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

You appear to have concluded(on what evidence??) that BG had discovered that the bill was not fully paid a year or more ago, and thus should have sent reminders/chasers.


In the original post the OP stated that he had just(Sept 2014) had a letter explaining that they 'should have taken one more DD payment'.


As said earlier a bill can be chased for 6 years, and refunds sought for the same period.

The OP said "'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'

I believe he is disputing that this bill was sent i.e. at the end of March 2013.

If that bill was never sent then is it not correct to say that the back billing code is applicable.

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

Who said that management are doing this on a systematic basis? .

You raised the issue of suppliers circumventing the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

You raised the issue of suppliers circumventing the back billing code by saying they previously issued bills.

As the converse of assuming all customers would lie if companies had to prove they sent bills.

I went on to say that the solution was that companies evidence on the balance of probability they sent the bill. Since they have a year to do so, and an incentive to be paid, this is not at all difficult.