To pay or not to pay

PeevedOff

Back in 2013 I switched energy supplier from Scottish Power under the guidance of the Cheap Energy Club. As always I checked my balance when the switch completed and found to be in the region of £60 in credit so I requested that be transferred to my bank account which went through without any problems. As I normally do I then cancel the direct debit instruction and thought nothing else of it and continued on my merry way.

A couple of months ago I received a letter from my bank stating that a direct debit (for the same value as above) had been rejected for Scottish Power as there was no instruction for it within my direct debit list.

After contacting Scottish Power to investigate I spoke with a call centre where the chap on the end of the phone initially couldn't find out why a request for payment had been made. After several minutes on hold he came back to me stating the value was identical to the refund value from back in 2013 and said that there had been a computer error made and there shouldn't have been a payment request. I checked back on my financial records whilst with the agent and checked that I had received the refund correctly. The call concluded with him agreeing that no money was owed by or due to myself and there would be no further problems.

Several weeks later I receive an email regarding my 'compliant' to Scottish Power. They then stated that my refund from 2013 had been processed twice, two weeks after the initial refund was carried out. Checking my bank records again (now onto a different months statement) it appears that this is the case and I never noticed it at the time.

Morally I am aware what the right thing to do is but I am somewhat put out due to the fact that Scottish Power think it's appropriate to take payment for an amount without notice over 18 months after an account has been closed.

Is this age of austerity an unexpected direct debit can push people down a slippery slope of further bank charges should an overdraft be incurred and I feel that due to the time frame and the incompetence of Scottish Power involved, this debt (and I use that word loosely) should be 'chalked up to experience' and written off.

I'm wondering what would you do in these cirumstances and what can they do if I refuse payment? At the moment I have just received a final bill for payment due to having 'recently changed supplier'. The truth of the matter is that I've changed my supplier twice since that time.

naedanger

PeevedOff wrote: »

Back in 2013 I switched energy supplier from Scottish Power under the guidance of the Cheap Energy Club. As always I checked my balance when the switch completed and found to be in the region of £60 in credit so I requested that be transferred to my bank account which went through without any problems. As I normally do I then cancel the direct debit instruction and thought nothing else of it and continued on my merry way.

A couple of months ago I received a letter from my bank stating that a direct debit (for the same value as above) had been rejected for Scottish Power as there was no instruction for it within my direct debit list.

After contacting Scottish Power to investigate I spoke with a call centre where the chap on the end of the phone initially couldn't find out why a request for payment had been made. After several minutes on hold he came back to me stating the value was identical to the refund value from back in 2013 and said that there had been a computer error made and there shouldn't have been a payment request. I checked back on my financial records whilst with the agent and checked that I had received the refund correctly. The call concluded with him agreeing that no money was owed by or due to myself and there would be no further problems.

Several weeks later I receive an email regarding my 'compliant' to Scottish Power. They then stated that my refund from 2013 had been processed twice, two weeks after the initial refund was carried out. Checking my bank records again (now onto a different months statement) it appears that this is the case and I never noticed it at the time.

Morally I am aware what the right thing to do is but I am somewhat put out due to the fact that Scottish Power think it's appropriate to take payment for an amount without notice over 18 months after an account has been closed.

Is this age of austerity an unexpected direct debit can push people down a slippery slope of further bank charges should an overdraft be incurred and I feel that due to the time frame and the incompetence of Scottish Power involved, this debt (and I use that word loosely) should be 'chalked up to experience' and written off.

I'm wondering what would you do in these cirumstances and what can they do if I refuse payment? At the moment I have just received a final bill for payment due to having 'recently changed supplier'. The truth of the matter is that I've changed my supplier twice since that time.

If SP asked for the money back then I would repay it. (If I had incurred any bank charges as a result of the failed dd attempt then I would deduct those from any payment to SP.)

I would also send SP a written complaint and demand an explanation as to why they failed to notify me in advance that they would be attempting to take a payment by direct debit many months after my account was closed.

ViolaLass

So it's OK for you not to notice that you'd been repaid twice but not OK for them to want their money back? That's convenient.

Cardew

PeevedOff wrote: »

I'm wondering what would you do in these cirumstances and what can they do if I refuse payment?

Firstly it is obviously a valid debt. Some would pay, others wouldn't; and how you deal with that issue is up to you to decide.


They obviously can take you to court; however for a small debt of £60 they probably won't bother.


There is a possibility they will hand the debt to a Debt Collection Agency.


However it is pretty certain that failure to pay will put a black mark on your credit record; which may, or may not, cause you concern.

DandelionPatrol

ViolaLass wrote: »

So it's OK for you not to notice that you'd been repaid twice but not OK for them to want their money back? That's convenient.

While I agree with the above, it is distinctly out of order for SP to attempt to recover their error using a DD facility for an account which was closed down in 2013, more so for the fact that they attempted this without writing first.

brewerdave

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

While I agree with the above, it is distinctly out of order for SP to attempt to recover their error using a DD facility for an account which was closed down in 2013, more so for the fact that they attempted this without writing first.

...100% agreement -I would definitely raise a formal complaint over their attempt to reinstate the DD WITHOUT notice -and suggest that adequate compensation for the issue would be a write off of the "debt", brought about by THEIR chaotic bill administration:T

System

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

While I agree with the above, it is distinctly out of order for SP to attempt to recover their error using a DD facility for an account which was closed down in 2013, more so for the fact that they attempted this without writing first.

I agree; however.......... Most IT systems are not clever enough to know what is what. A revised final bill was raised, and the system has just done its thing. It has attempted to claim a payment on a dormant/cancelled DD mandate and failed: this has then generated an alert. The alert has generated a letter. This is not an excuse for bad billing but the protections built into the DD system do seem to have worked.

Dormant DD Mandates:

This is covered by the dormancy period rule. All banks hold details of Direct Debit Instructions on file for a minimum period of 13 months from lodgement of the Direct Debit Instruction, in the event of no collections, or from the date of the last payment. After the dormancy period has passed, the bank will remove details of the Instruction from their system. Before claiming further Direct Debit payments the organisation must obtain a new Direct Debit Instruction or your authority to continue collecting. If this is not done your Direct Debit payment may be returned by your bank.

lonestar1

Offer to repay at 50p per week - if they agree will probably cost them more than that in administration

DandelionPatrol

Hengus wrote: »

I agree; however.......... Most IT systems are not clever enough to know what is what. A revised final bill was raised, and the system has just done its thing. It has attempted to claim a payment on a dormant/cancelled DD mandate and failed: this has then generated an alert. The alert has generated a letter. This is not an excuse for bad billing but the protections built into the DD system do seem to have worked.

I buy that as an explanation but not as a justification or an excuse. The system raised a final bill. It should know that it was a final bill. If that final bill was revised later, it should have been flagged up for manual intervention. These are simple system rules, not rocket science.

Bad companies do bad IT and get bad reputations. Of course none of them know the value of a good reputation, so they only bother to put in the facility for a revised final bill because they can see that there is money in it. They are. of course, in denial about loss of reputation which arises from scenarios like OP's and about their own costs to untangle the mess.

naedanger

Hengus wrote: »

I agree; however.......... Most IT systems are not clever enough to know what is what. A revised final bill was raised, and the system has just done its thing. It has attempted to claim a payment on a dormant/cancelled DD mandate and failed: this has then generated an alert. The alert has generated a letter. This is not an excuse for bad billing but the protections built into the DD system do seem to have worked.

Dormant DD Mandates:

This is covered by the dormancy period rule. All banks hold details of Direct Debit Instructions on file for a minimum period of 13 months from lodgement of the Direct Debit Instruction, in the event of no collections, or from the date of the last payment. After the dormancy period has passed, the bank will remove details of the Instruction from their system. Before claiming further Direct Debit payments the organisation must obtain a new Direct Debit Instruction or your authority to continue collecting. If this is not done your Direct Debit payment may be returned by your bank.

I know you are not disagreeing that SP were wrong to attempt to take a payment without prior notice.

You say a revised bill was raised but I thought the OP was disputing that he ever received such a revised bill.

If the reason the bill was never received was that it was never raised then SP's process would not have all the protections you have described. (The missing protection being to ensure a automated dd is only triggered by a raised bill, or other client notification.)

System

naedanger wrote: »

I know you are not disagreeing that SP were wrong to attempt to take a payment without prior notice.

You say a revised bill was raised but I thought the OP was disputing that he ever received such a revised bill.

If the reason the bill was never received was that it was never raised then SP's process would not have all the protections you have described. (The missing protection being to ensure a automated dd is only triggered by a raised bill, or other client notification.)

From the OP's original post it sounds like he had an online account quote As always I checked my balance when the switch completed and found to be in the region of £60 in credit unquote.

I am not defending the supplier, or its IT systems. All I am saying is that a bill correction was clearly made (as is the case with many suppliers) and the IT system followed its billing programme. The OP is now aware that there is an issue and I am sure, like most of us, he will want to see revised Final Bill before any payment is made.

Billing errors shouldn't happen but, sadly in the case of the domestic energy sector, they are an all too frequent occurence. That is the root of the problem.