Not been charged for gas.

Clarkmyster

Back in Jun 2014 I moved to a Scottish Power fixed gas and electricity tariff until July 2015. I have started looking into what might be the best deal to move on to now and have realised that I have only been charged once by Scottish Power for gas during this whole time period. I am just wondering if I am liable to pay for the gas I have used or, given that it is Scottish Power's error, they are liable. Wondered if anyone had any thoughts .....

System

http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publication.html?task=file.download&id=5220

Note the Section on 'Your Responsibilities"

Clarkmyster

Thanks for that,
The only payment taken was back in August 2014 - so within the last year - I'm assuming that this means that we are therefore liable for all the gas we have used since this time?

Cardew

Welcome to the forum.


As a general principle you pay for what you use.


You state that you moved for gas and electricity to SP in June 2014, but then state you haven't paid for gas with no mention of electricity.


Bear in mind that SP, unlike some companies, have a single payment for gas and electricity. So have there been any payments other than the single payment?


Have you received any bills on-line or by paper? have you entered any meter readings on-line or by phone?


Even if SP are in error and your case is covered by the 12 month back-billing rule, you still pay for the last 12 month's consumption and it is only the period before that date that can be written off.


P.S.
It is really surprising that we get so many posters on MSE who only 'realize' after a year or so that they have not been paying their gas/electricity bill; yet so many who are up in arms if they think they have been overcharged by 50p! Strange that!

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

It is really surprising that we get so many posters on MSE who only 'realize' after a year or so that they have not been paying their gas/electricity bill; yet so many who are up in arms if they think they have been overcharged by 50p! Strange that!

Well it is clear what you are implying by that.

I don't recall many complaints about small amounts of overcharging. But I do see plenty of cases of suppliers not implementing the back billing principle unless it is brought to their attention.

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

Well it is clear what you are implying by that.

I don't recall many complaints about small amounts of overcharging. But I do see plenty of cases of suppliers not implementing the back billing principle unless it is brought to their attention.

Implying? -Moi;)

Yes I think it is implausible that so many people, who presumably are keen on money-saving, don't notice that they haven't been paying for gas/electricity but are aware of the existence of the back-billing provision - even if they don't have the full details.

I would agree with you about companies not implementing the back-billing principle. However it is not really surprising that if their billing systems are so chaotic(SP/NPower etc) that they cannot send bills or deduct DD payments, they are not aware there is a liability under the back-billing provision.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

Implying? -Moi;)

Yes I think it is implausible that so many people, who presumably are keen on money-saving, don't notice that they haven't been paying for gas/electricity but are aware of the existence of the back-billing provision - even if they don't have the full details.

I don't think I have ever benefited from not being billed, but I know I would be less inclined to spot a missed bill than an unauthorised one. That is because I tend not to check my account in any detail, I generally just scan my bank account and credit card statements (and I will scan in more detail when the outgoings are higher than usual). So it is easier to spot an unrecognised entry than a missing one. (I would notice a large missing bill because I would be expecting it. I would probably notice a missing regular bill at some point, but could easily miss it for a few months.) Of course I understand that some people will notice a missed bill and keep quiet about it. But I can also see how other people (perhaps a smaller number) genuinely won't notice a missed bill at all.

I would agree with you about companies not implementing the back-billing principle. However it is not really surprising that if their billing systems are so chaotic(SP/NPower etc) that they cannot send bills or deduct DD payments, they are not aware there is a liability under the back-billing provision.

I can accept it is incompetence but it is still not right. There seems insufficient incentive for suppliers to fix faults that detriment their customers rather than their profits.

Nada666

naedanger wrote: »

I can accept it is incompetence but it is still not right. There seems insufficient incentive for suppliers to fix faults that detriment their customers rather than their profits.

The trouble is whenever the suppliers do make a change and whatever the change a different (and, quite often, the exact same) tranche of customers will complain about the consequences of those remedies.

Cardew

naedanger wrote: »

I can accept it is incompetence but it is still not right. There seems insufficient incentive for suppliers to fix faults that detriment their customers rather than their profits.

Of course it is not right, and that is due to an over-reliance on flawed computer systems.


However I would question your assertion that the faults are to the 'detriment of their customers'.


The back-billing rule works to the advantage of customers, and the companies are so worried about complaints to the ombudsman that this code is often interpreted in favour of the customer.


Even in cases like the OP, he/she will effectively have received an interest free loan, be given a further 12 months to pay back the arrears and often will get a goodwill reduction.


Contrast that with complaint after complaint that we get about accounts being £100 in credit and the companies earning interest on that money.

naedanger

Nada666 wrote: »

The trouble is whenever the suppliers do make a change and whatever the change a different (and, quite often, the exact same) tranche of customers will complain about the consequences of those remedies.

What I am saying is that suppliers should issue accurate bills. So for example they should not bill customers for energy used over 12 months ago if the reason for the delay in issuing the bill was because of failures by the supplier.

I am guessing what you are referring to is estimated billing where whatever method of estimation is used some customers will be unhappy. There I have some sympathy with suppliers' predicament especially where they offer the same rates for those paying the full amount each month.

naedanger

Cardew wrote: »

However I would question your assertion that the faults are to the 'detriment of their customers'.

I am not saying all faults are to the detriment of customers. I am not worried about faults that are to the benefit of customers since the companies have an incentive to minimise such faults - they will save money by preventing this type of fault.

However they will lose money by preventing faults that are causing customers to pay more than they should. My concern is that suppliers have no incentive to fix such faults.

The back-billing rule works to the advantage of customers,

agreed (provided of course the principle is followed), but all companies have to follow this principle so suppliers should be at no competitive disadvantage following this principle. However the good suppliers will be at a competitive disadvantage if some companies are not rigorous in applying the principle.

and the companies are so worried about complaints to the ombudsman that this code is often interpreted in favour of the customer.

I don't agree with this bit. Suppliers get the chance to modify their standard practice before cases go to the Ombudsman. So they can be lax (through incompetence and poor systems) in identifying cases where they have overcharged customers. When a small proportion of customers pick up on that matter the supplier has an opportunity to fix the issue (just for those customers) before it goes to the Ombudsman. This is fine for the specific complainant but does not help all those other customers who were unaware they were overcharged.

Even in cases like the OP, he/she will effectively have received an interest free loan, be given a further 12 months to pay back the arrears and often will get a goodwill reduction.

I agree, provided the customer actually is compensated under the back billing code. My point is there are many cases where this is not happening (by poor systems). In my view the regulator should require suppliers to review their past records given the state of their billing systems.

Contrast that with complaint after complaint that we get about accounts being £100 in credit and the companies earning interest on that money.

I would not have sympathy with such a complaint.