Should I accept Ombudsman's ruling?

King_Weasel

I've just had a response from the Energy Ombudsman on my complaint against - guess who? - Scottish Power, inviting me to accept their decision "in full and final settlement." The decision includes sending me a copy of the final gas bill and also sending a final electricity bill when they get the reading from my new supplier (who, needless to say, say they sent it over 6 months ago - and I know who I believe.)

What does "full and final settlement" mean? Am I committed to paying whatever Scottish Power say? If not, then I've no problem in accepting the Ombudsman's recommendations.

I have to say I am worried about the Ombudsman's report because it doesn't seem to accept my central complaint, which is that the c/f and b/f balances on consecutive bills did not match, effectively robbing me of over £400. Yet their report says "if the opening meter readings ... and closing meter readings ... are correct [they are], all payments you made are showing [they are] and the correct tariff was used [well, maybe...], we would regard the bills as accurate". Umm, what about matching balances and my £400?

I feel that maybe I can overlook this error in their report so long as my rights to contest any bill that fails to restore the £400 are not jeopardised by signing off their report.

Any advice please?

spiro

Based on what you have posted the ombudsman has not looked at the individual bills but your overall bill from the day you joined SP to the day you left. This is one of most accurate ways of looking at it because it removes any issues of bills being based on a mixture of actual and estimated reads. The final outcome is the SP will provide final bills as stated and you will be requied to pay that bill as it is correct based on the entire period of the account.

stator

Ask them to provide a bill that covers the entire period of your account with them and then settle it.

naedanger

King_Weasel wrote: »

I've just had a response from the Energy Ombudsman on my complaint against - guess who? - Scottish Power, inviting me to accept their decision "in full and final settlement." The decision includes sending me a copy of the final gas bill and also sending a final electricity bill when they get the reading from my new supplier (who, needless to say, say they sent it over 6 months ago - and I know who I believe.)

What does "full and final settlement" mean? Am I committed to paying whatever Scottish Power say? If not, then I've no problem in accepting the Ombudsman's recommendations.

I have to say I am worried about the Ombudsman's report because it doesn't seem to accept my central complaint, which is that the c/f and b/f balances on consecutive bills did not match, effectively robbing me of over £400. Yet their report says "if the opening meter readings ... and closing meter readings ... are correct [they are], all payments you made are showing [they are] and the correct tariff was used [well, maybe...], we would regard the bills as accurate". Umm, what about matching balances and my £400?

I feel that maybe I can overlook this error in their report so long as my rights to contest any bill that fails to restore the £400 are not jeopardised by signing off their report.

Any advice please?

If you are worried about an aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling you must clarify it before accepting the ruling. "Full and final settlement" means that if you accept the ruling you are bound by it and you agree the settlement (once implemented) will fully resolve the matter. Therefore if you accept the settlement, and it is implemented by SP, then you would be unable to make any further claim in respect of the matter.

Based on what you have said, I too would be concerned that the Ombudsman has not understood your point.

If, once you have clarified what the Ombudsman means, you disagree with their final decision you should decline their proposed settlement. They will then not deal any further with your case but you can then make a legal claim against Scottish Power.

Consumerist

From what you appear to be saying, it looks like a fudge of the issue by the Ombudsman. If he/they have not addressed the issue of your complaint then there is a complaints procedure by which you can make a complaint against the Ombudsman Services.

If you reject the Ombudsman's findings then you need to decide whether you want to pursue SP through the Small Claims Court and for that you will need to have the evidence to support your claim e.g. the bills demonstrating the £400 loss on your balance.

Nada666

Have you checked that the £400 balance is indeed missing and is not accounted for in your usage?

Or is your complaint only about the clarity of the bills and not about being owed money?

King_Weasel

Nada666 wrote: »

Have you checked that the £400 balance is indeed missing and is not accounted for in your usage?

Or is your complaint only about the clarity of the bills and not about being owed money?

All I can say is that SP's bill ended 2 Oct 2013 had a c/f balance of £125.66 in credit. Their next bill from 3 Oct had a b/f balance of £290.29 in debit. SP admitted a "system error" in an email but have never corrected it.

King_Weasel

naedanger wrote: »

If you are worried about an aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling you must clarify it before accepting the ruling. "Full and final settlement" means that if you accept the ruling you are bound by it and you agree the settlement (once implemented) will fully resolve the matter. Therefore if you accept the settlement, and it is implemented by SP, then you would be unable to make any further claim in respect of the matter.

Based on what you have said, I too would be concerned that the Ombudsman has not understood your point.

If, once you have clarified what the Ombudsman means, you disagree with their final decision you should decline their proposed settlement. They will then not deal any further with your case but you can then make a legal claim against Scottish Power.

Thanks for this and the other replies. It seems I shouldn't accept their decision. They say I would need to "show that there is a significant error in the facts". But there is no error in the facts (the Ombudsman summarised my case reasonably) but have made what could be termed an error of logic viz that their criteria for determing whether their bill is accurate are insufficient, ommitting the one factor (continuity in £ balances) that is my prime complaint.

As for the Small Claims Court, my tentative estimate of the SP bill since 2 Oct (I closed the a/c in early Dec 2014) suggests they don't owe me much, as I discontinued my Direct Debit after my Oct 2014 payment, so maybe I'll wait for them to chase me.

naedanger

King_Weasel wrote: »

... but have made what could be termed an error of logic viz that their criteria for determing whether their bill is accurate are insufficient, ommitting the one factor (continuity in £ balances) that is my prime complaint.

Completely agree, and it seems so obvious. It does nothing to instil much confidence in the Ombudsman. Still as the service is free at least nothing is lost other than time.

As for the Small Claims Court, my tentative estimate of the SP bill since 2 Oct (I closed the a/c in early Dec 2014) suggests they don't owe me much, as I discontinued my Direct Debit after my Oct 2014 payment, so maybe I'll wait for them to chase me.

This sounds sensible, and if SP do claim against you in court I believe it is easy to issue a counterclaim (if they do still owe you some residual amount).

However is a good credit rating important to you? If so you should check whether there is any risk this matter might (wrongly) adversely impact your credit record with rating agencies.

spiro

King_Weasel wrote: »

All I can say is that SP's bill ended 2 Oct 2013 had a c/f balance of £125.66 in credit. Their next bill from 3 Oct had a b/f balance of £290.29 in debit. SP admitted a "system error" in an email but have never corrected it.

Ignore this error. Take your joining reading, your leaving reading, the price per unit and the standing charge and calculate it is as one bill. Then deduct what you have paid. Does the amount owed agree with what SP and the Ombudsman say you owe? If so you owe it, the issue with the b/f & c/f are just errors on the bill that don't effect you financially.

footyguy

King_Weasel wrote: »

I've just had a response from the Energy Ombudsman on my complaint against - guess who? - Scottish Power, inviting me to accept their decision "in full and final settlement." The decision includes sending me a copy of the final gas bill and also sending a final electricity bill when they get the reading from my new supplier (who, needless to say, say they sent it over 6 months ago - and I know who I believe.)

What does "full and final settlement" mean? Am I committed to paying whatever Scottish Power say? If not, then I've no problem in accepting the Ombudsman's recommendations.

I have to say I am worried about the Ombudsman's report because it doesn't seem to accept my central complaint, which is that the c/f and b/f balances on consecutive bills did not match, effectively robbing me of over £400. Yet their report says "if the opening meter readings ... and closing meter readings ... are correct [they are], all payments you made are showing [they are] and the correct tariff was used [well, maybe...], we would regard the bills as accurate". Umm, what about matching balances and my £400?

I feel that maybe I can overlook this error in their report so long as my rights to contest any bill that fails to restore the £400 are not jeopardised by signing off their report.

Any advice please?

"Full & Final Settlement" essentially means that, if you accept, you cannot ask for or expect anything else in relation to your complaint.
You are not obligated to accept, but if you do the supplier is obligated to comply.

Naturally, if the resolution incudes an order that a full and final bill is produced, you have the right to expect such a bill to be correct. If the bill is incorrect, then you can of course challenge that later.

Personally I would not accept the resolution as drafted, and am surprised it has been drafted that way as it is too open.
e.g. "also sending a final electricity bill when they get the reading from my new supplier (who, needless to say, say they sent it over 6 months ago - and I know who I believe.)"

Fuirst of all, if you have evidence the new supplier provided the reading 6 months ago, then you should have provided that to the ombudsman and so the wording would be irrelevent.
Secondly, if there is no such evidence, this is far to open. What happens, if for example the new supplier (who is otherwise not involved in this dispute) does not supply the reading? Presumably the complaint is left in limbo ad infinitum. You need to get this tied down to a specific date.

Normally I would suggest this would be done before a formal assessment is issued to you as it is something the adjudicator should do. But it may be too late for that now, so you may have to ask for a formal review of the assessment by the ombudsman - it should all be explained in the letter to you.

Also, before any investigations begin, it is normal for the case handler to contact you and discuss the complaint. One of the first things they ask about is your complaint itself and their understanding of that complaint. This should be summarised in the letter they have now sent you. It is therefore surprising that they do not seem to have addressed the main matter. Again something you should be challenge if you are not happy about this.

But I think what they are essentially saying is ignore all the intervening bills/statements with b/f & c/f balances.
Start at the beginning with the start readings (with the old supplier).
Then using the final redaings, calculate the consumption and cost in accordance with the agreed tariff.
Subtract monies paid.
The difference is what is owed (either way).