First Utility & Back Billing

immy

Needing some clarification.

I had been with First Utility for approx 15 months. In this time they have failed to produce a single estimated or actual bill.

I complained to ombudsman who produced a remedy detailing that first utility should :-

credit any charges for unbilled energy that you consumed over 12 months prior to the date of the bill, taking into account any payments or credits already applied in line with the principles of Energy UK’s Code of Practice for Accurate Bills;

I take this to mean that all usage prior to 12 months should be credited back to my account and if this results in credit balance, then this should be returned to me...

however first utlity are proposing that this means that any excess usage over and above my DD monthly payment would be cleared however i would still be liable for what i had paid via my DD. They stating that the monthly DD was a form of billing which i dispute.

Any thoughts?

System

I am firmly in your court on this one. Some clever soul at FU is just trying it on. DD payments are just money (credits) paid to an account to offset future charges. The Code of Prctice and The Energy Ombudsman' ruling is clear.

5. Back billing

Suppliers have signed up to the back-billing principles. They will assess each back-billing case individually.

5.1 If your supplier is at fault and has not sent you an accurate bill that they should have sent you, they will not ask you to pay any extra for energy you used (and which you did not receive an accurate bill for) more than one year before they issued the bill.

Edit: reading the above more slowly than was the case when I posted it, the words 'any extra' are both ambiguous and open to interpretation.

From the Telegraph website:

Ofgem directed all domestic energy suppliers to stop back-billing customers for energy used more than 12 months ago, if the supplier was at fault for not having sent a correct bill to the customer. The 12 months is measured from when the error is detected and a correct bill is issued.
The 12-month limit may apply if your supplier has failed to bill you at all and you have requested bills from them, or billed you using estimated meter readings instead of valid readings provided by you or a meter reader. Other circumstances include where the supplier has failed to do anything about a query or fault you have raised, failed to reassess a payment arrangement (such as a direct debit) within 15 months, or failed to reassess based on a reasonable estimate.

immy

Yeah that was my understanding of it. Re contacted the ombudsman who were airy fairy to say the least and not wanting to offer an opinion either way.

I will get back in touch with first utility to dispute the incorrect calculation and progress it as a new complaint.

matelodave

As far as I understand it, the back billing rule doesn't absolve you completely from any payment before the 12 months if you've already paid something towards it.

ie if you've been paying a direct debit, but it's been insufficient to cover the amount of energy you've used then they can't send you a bill for the difference. That's what "taking into account any payments or credits" means - not that you get the whole bill written off and all your money back.

There is a responsibility within the COP for you to put some effort into trying to get a bill and to submit meter readings.

dogshome

Hmmm - Back billing is an 'Agreement' signed up to by suppliers, it never was a 'rule' imposed by Ofgem.

Originally the period was two years, later amended to one year and I suspect that it was pressure from Ofgem in an attempt to resolve the issue of customers being issued with huge unexpected bills by saying "Sort this problem out, or we will impose rules to make you sort it out", ( Never doubt the influence of the Energy industries lobby in parliement ),

The stated mantra at the time for the Back Billing agreement, was that it protected customers from 'Bill Shock' and it applied across the board until one of the suppliers claimed that for Direct Debit customers who had built up a credit because they had not been billed, did not suffer 'Bill shock' as the credit soaked up a large part of the late bill - Ofgem have never challanged this interpretation, and as is not part of their legislation, why would they?

FU, who could be at best described as 'slippery', seem to be claiming the D/debit get-out, and with the present stance of Ofgem who can blame them.
The only advice to the OP is to claim for Back Billing on every penny in excess of their Credit Balance

System

I live and learn. From FU's website:

What is back-billing?

A back-bill is a ‘catch-up’ bill sent to you by your gas or electricity supplier when you haven’t been correctly charged for your energy use (for periods exceeding 12 months or more). Back-bills can be for any amount but there is a code in place defining when and for how far back your supplier can charge you.

The Back-Billing Code

Since 2007 domestic energy suppliers have stopped back-billing customers for energy used more than 12 months ago, if the supplier was at fault for not having sent a bill to the customer.

immy

my timeline of events....dont think i could have done much more to get a bill from them.

Joined Nov 14

Send meter reads in Mar, may, july.

Request access to my online account in feb and july (cant access due to internal error on their website to do with my account)

Raise complaint in August at no bill being generated.
Promised bill by end of august.
Case escalated in September.
I keep in touch with them for the next 8 weeks trying to get a bill.
Every week i am told it is another reason for bill not being produced.
November, i move my supply to another provider and raise complaint with ombudsman.
Feb 2016 ombudsman rules against first utility.
Mar 2016...first utility still unable to raise a bill so have to raise a manual bill for me. My first bill in 16 months.

Wolf3

as far as i can tell there are 2 issues regarding this resolution and as others have pointed out i think it is a matter of opinion.

as far as i was aware, the back billing code was introduced to prevent "bill shock" and send massive bills made from their own mistakes in not providing said bill in a timely manner. afaik this means when suppliers produce a bill and they the last bill was over 12 months prior, they estimate a reading for a date exactly 12 months previous to the date its produced. any usage prior to this estimate is cleared from the customer's balance.
The second issue regarding the DD, your right, these payments are made to cover your bill, however if the amount you have paid via DD is greater than the adjusted bill, you are perfectly entitled to ask for this credit back.

immy

Been offered the difference between actual usage and amount paid on my dd for usage over 12 months ago which amounted to under £100, and a discretionary one of credit of £100, but still have a sum of over £200 to pay on the balance.

if i had known my DD was under then i would have made provision to increase this monthly to meet the bill but they failed to provide me with any bill.

I now need to pay my current supplier plus my old supplier.

matelodave

I'm assuming that the £200 that you've got to pay is for energy used in the present 12 month window, rather than the previous one which you state they are refunding the difference (what you'd paid v their estimate) plus crediting you with £100 Sounds about right.

If you had kept a record of your meter readings yourself you would know exactly what your bills should have been.

Not getting a bill is not an excuse for not knowing how much you are using, especially if you are sending in regular readings.

Five minutes once a month to put your readings into a spread sheet can save hours of aggro in the future.

System

So- if I am understanding correctly what is being said here - if I pay £50 per month for, say, 18 months but should have been paying £45 per month then any claim for Back Billing will result in absolutely nothing despite the fact that I have been e-mailing them every month requesting a bill.

Conversely, if I was underpaying by £5 per month, then the supplier couldn't ask me for the £60 under-payment for the first 12 months of the 18 month period.

One has to ask if this true - and most money sites interpret the Code to a simple write off of the bill from the 12 month point backwards - then why is The Ombudsman proposing this as a remedy? It would be fairer if compensation was given for poor service without the Code coming into play. One has to wonder why FU allowed this case to go to The Ombudsman?