Octopus Energy reviews: Give your feedback

Telegraph_Sam

My stated stance precisely. The counter was that somewhere in the past there was an "under-billing" with gas and that now they had to go through a 24-point retrospective "re-billing" program of charges and credits (totally incomprehensible to non-accountant outsiders) which resulted in the sudden catch-up charge. I might begin to understand this if I was using some monthly fixed D/D arrangement, but not if I have been relying on them to zero the account each time of taking the variable D/D.

 I am seeing if I can get Octopus to modify this amicably If not I fear it will be a matter of following the forum's advice on disputes.

masonic

If the under-billed period was over 12 months ago, they would not have any right to levy a catch-up charge. Under back-billing rules, they cannot raise new charges for energy used more than 12 months ago unless there is a sufficient credit balance on the account. Their billing system seems to have this programmed in, as when they did this to me there was a small extra charge of £1.07, but it was automatically cancelled as "Write off (Past billable date)". When they put everything back to how it was originally during my formal complaint this entry was removed as "Reversed credit".

Telegraph_Sam

Interesting and relevant. I was not aware of the 12 month rule. In a way I hope they don't raise it since much of the smoke and mirrors could well have occurred in less than 12 months ago (and therefore "legit"). Rather I will hold them to accepting - I hope - that a properly functioning variable D/D system should automatically prevent backlogs and surpluses from occurring in the first place. At one point they seemed to accept that the account balance should be zeroed - but then it seemed that they had had second thoughts, voiced by a different person perhaps.

Cardew

Telegraph_Sam said:

Interesting and relevant. I was not aware of the 12 month rule. In a way I hope they don't raise it since much of the smoke and mirrors could well have occurred in less than 12 months ago (and therefore "legit"). Rather I will hold them to accepting - I hope - that a properly functioning variable D/D system should automatically prevent backlogs and surpluses from occurring in the first place. At one point they seemed to accept that the account balance should be zeroed - but then it seemed that they had had second thoughts, voiced by a different person perhaps.

Energy bills: 'My £5,700 charge was cancelled because supplier broke rules' - BBC News

Telegraph_Sam

These articles don't seem to comment on back-billing in periods less than 12 months old,  unfortunately, almost as if this was within the rules. To me it should not be permissible to back-bill from these later periods without safeguards. It is not difficult to confuse the consumer with accountancy data even if relatively recent. I hope that this would be recognized if it came to an official complaint.

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

These articles don't seem to comment on back-billing in periods less than 12 months old,  unfortunately, almost as if this was within the rules. To me it should not be permissible to back-bill from these later periods without safeguards. It is not difficult to confuse the consumer with accountancy data even if relatively recent. I hope that this would be recognized if it came to an official complaint.

It is considered acceptable because there are several reasons why a supplier might not be able to provide an accurate bill for some period of time following the use of the energy. A line in the sand was drawn at 12 months.

The issue here is that Octopus seems to be recalculating bills without being able to explain why. In my case, they could not point out any missing or incorrect data that would require it, and they insisted that they hadn't charged me any more overall (although I couldn't verify that when I tried to untangle the web of reversals and re-billings). Have they been able to point to a period of time or a bill that was incorrect in your case?

Telegraph_Sam

I think that's the very point, it doesn't look like it's a case of pinpointing one or two individual dud invoices. But more an underlying bug requiring 24 lines of retro charges and credits to put right. Plus quite a hefty terminal charge.  I had no reason to believe that any invoice (s) were suspect.  If they don't accept this I will maintain it amounts to a breach of contract and escalate to a complaint. Somewhere in one of the MSE blogs there are a helpful couple of links that some kindly forumite posted saying how to do this.

debitcardmayhem

Telegraph_Sam said:

My stated stance precisely. The counter was that somewhere in the past there was an "under-billing" with gas and that now they had to go through a 24-point retrospective "re-billing" program of charges and credits (totally incomprehensible to non-accountant outsiders) which resulted in the sudden catch-up charge. I might begin to understand this if I was using some monthly fixed D/D arrangement, but not if I have been relying on them to zero the account each time of taking the variable D/D.

 I am seeing if I can get Octopus to modify this amicably If not I fear it will be a matter of following the forum's advice on disputes.

Could it be that you were on GAS tracker and your meter is not smart?

Telegraph_Sam

Yes and yes. They have known about this for well over 12 months. I have regularly submitted manal readings and have been billed accordingly

Telegraph_Sam

I make a comparison with me buying something online from eBay or some other seller who subsequently changes his mind well after the sale has been completed.

I had the Moneybox programme on Radio 4 this evening. It seems that "back-billing" is not unknown and is an issue for the Fin Ombudsman - if it occurs outwith the 12 month gap.  Nothing said about less than 12 months which to me opens the gate for all kinds of (online) abuse.