Backbilled over 12 months ago?

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

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.

No.


You appear to be forgetting that he ceased to be a BG customer on 31 March 2013 and that he was paying by Direct Debit.


Nowhere has the OP stating he wasn't getting regular bills, it is only production/receipt of the final bill he is questioning.


If the back billing code were to apply, how would it affect the OP?


If we took the date of 31 March 2013 the OP would still be required to pay for gas/electricity back to 31 March 2012.

So what scenario do you envisage where the back-billing code would enable the OP not to pay the money he owes?

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

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.

Customers can lie and there is virtually no chance of proving they lied; let alone action being taken.


If a Corporate company lies, and puts that lie in writing, there is every chance of discovery, and then the certainty of action by the Regulator.


In the OP's case the reason for no reminders is that it appears that BG have only just discovered(Sept 2014) that the bill had not been fully paid. Thus they are perfectly entitled to request payment.


It seems quite evident from the OPs post that he is hoping the back-billing code will enable him to escape payment of a sum he is not disputing he owes.


He can of course request a further copy of that final bill dated 31 March 2013 to check that he does indeed owe the sum that BG failed to take by DD.


So as the question he posed, was could he escape payment under the provisions of the Back-Billing code, why don't you advise him of how this could be achieved.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

No.


You appear to be forgetting that he ceased to be a BG customer on 31 March 2013 and that he was paying by Direct Debit.


Nowhere has the OP stating he wasn't getting regular bills, it is only production/receipt of the final bill he is questioning.


If the back billing code were to apply, how would it affect the OP?


If we took the date of 31 March 2013 the OP would still be required to pay for gas/electricity back to 31 March 2012.

OK. I actually agree with you on this point. I had missed that the relevant factor is not the period since the last bill but the period for which energy was supplied.

Therefore the OP should not base any complaint on the back billing code (if they agree with this reading).

However if they feel they have a genuine complaint in my view they should still complain. But I now think their chance of winning anything substantial is low.

So what scenario do you envisage where the back-billing code would enable the OP not to pay the money he owes?

None. I agree with your date of 31 March 2012.

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

Therefore the OP should not base any complaint on the back billing code (if they agree with this reading).

Thanks, posts crossed.

The OP wrote:

I don't dispute that I used the energy.

One might ask how he doesn't 'dispute he used the energy' when he purports not to have received the final bill;)

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

Customers can lie and there is virtually no chance of proving they lied; let alone action being taken.

I don't agree if the proof is on the balance of probability. The company should give the evidence they have for believing they issued a bill. If they give no evidence then why do they think they issued the bill?

If a Corporate company lies, and puts that lie in writing, there is every chance of discovery, and then the certainty of action by the Regulator.

I have certainly been told things that were untrue by companies, including energy companies in the past. If it is the odd instance (rather than systematic) then regulators are unlikely to be interested. They know in practice individual cases are handled by members of staff who will not always get things right. And there are occasional instances of companies systematically behaving badly. I can think of one business supplier who I believe (just based on posts I have seen) is systematically lying. I cannot say the name since I could not substantiate this. (However I suspect you might know who I am talking about.) I think it is wrong to automatically believe one party based on their size. The validity of any assertion should be based on the evidence.

In the OP's case the reason for no reminders is that it appears that BG have only just discovered(Sept 2014) that the bill had not been fully paid. Thus they are perfectly entitled to request payment.

It seems quite evident from the OPs post that he is hoping the back-billing code will enable him to escape payment of a sum he is not disputing he owes.

He can of course request a further copy of that final bill dated 31 March 2013 to check that he does indeed owe the sum that BG failed to take by DD.

So as the question he posed, was could he escape payment under the provisions of the Back-Billing code, why don't you advise him of how this could be achieved.

As I say I accept this point. In my original advice I did say the OP should read the back billing code themselves to decide if they had a claim. That said I accept my later posts were based on an incorrect reading and I think the back billing code would not help his case.

chanz4

no point beating about the bush, bill was produced , the op didn't chase it . We could all sit here allday making excuses

pokhim

Thanks for the comments guys. I'm not trying to scam anyone or the energy company. I had just assumed my bills were up to date.

I called BG who said that the intitial meter read from my new supplier (SSE) should have been sent to BG when I switch supplier who would then have taken a DD. This was over 18 months ago that I switched supplier.

The 'bill they sent me' would only have been an estimate; and therefore in order to get an accurate bill I need to contact SSE to find out what my intitial read was and then pass that information back to BG. Apparently this is something they should have sorted out between SSE and BG when I first switched over 18months ago and I shouldnt have been involved.

As i said, I dispute receiving a bill. But of course i understand that doesn't hold much weight unless it can be proven.

pokhim

The question is if they didn't produce an accurate bill and only an estimate? And then didn't proceed to communicate with SSE to get the initial meter read then I can't really see how I'm at fault?

If they go ahead and produce a new bill from the reading of 18months ago then I presume the backbilling clause would apply? This is because they have not communicated with SSE, they have not sent 1 single reminder, they admit there is a glitch in their system and i had assumed my bills were all up to date.

Andy_WSM

pokhim wrote: »

If they go ahead and produce a new bill from the reading of 18months ago then I presume the backbilling clause would apply?

Not if you haven't made efforts to obtain a bill. It's a 2 way street. You assumed you were up to date. You weren't. It's not entirely BGs fault.

System

pokhim wrote: »

Thanks for the comments guys. I'm not trying to scam anyone or the energy company. I had just assumed my bills were up to date.

I called BG who said that the intitial meter read from my new supplier (SSE) should have been sent to BG when I switch supplier who would then have taken a DD. This was over 18 months ago that I switched supplier.

The 'bill they sent me' would only have been an estimate; and therefore in order to get an accurate bill I need to contact SSE to find out what my intitial read was and then pass that information back to BG. Apparently this is something they should have sorted out between SSE and BG when I first switched over 18months ago and I shouldnt have been involved.

As i said, I dispute receiving a bill. But of course i understand that doesn't hold much weight unless it can be proven.

This is complete tosh. The gaining supplier is responsible for requesting opening meter readings which they pass on to the losing supplier. There is no obligation on the part of the customer to inform his old supplier of the switch or to give any meter readings. The readings may be adjusted (industry estimate). The key thing for the customer to check is that the opening and closing reads are the same. If a Final Bill had incorrect readings then the OP should ask BG to resolve the discrepancy. Before doing so I personally would check that any adjustment would be in my favour. BG cannot argue, on one hand, that they issued a Final Bill and , on the other, they didn't get any readings from SSE. If they didn't get any readings, then the switch would not have gone through. Personally, I would e-mail BG with a formal complaint.