Back-billing - energy supplier asking for their refund back!

slimbloke

I have had years of trouble with my duel-fuel supplier, but more recently they advised me by phone that as I haven't had an invoice/bill from them for so long, I can get all money paid to them up to 12 months ago, refunded to me.

I obviously took them up on this, but have then found out that as I was paying their estimated bills anyway (without official bills) that they shouldn't have given me a refund as they CAN keep money I have already paid (if I hadn't paid, then the Back-Billing Code would have been in my favour).

My question is, as they told me more than once that I was due a refund and they paid up (around £3k) can they then ask for it back?

FYI I have the ombudsmen involved and they are playing a middle ground as they can't give legal advice.

System

I suggest that you need some considered legal advice. FWIW, my view is that as Back Billing is a voluntary code agreed with OFGEM, and If the supplier now finds that it hasn't actually breached the code and wants its money back, I suspect that they have a valid case against you to seek a refund.

slimbloke

That is what the ombudsmen are saying too Hengus, and I'm getting 20 minutes free advice next week... but I thought there might be a case that that had already said I'm legally owed the money, that they then can't change their mind.

Is there anyone in this forum who is of a legal mind?

Cardew

I believe it is a well established principle in English law that firms can correct a mistake.


There are many cases of Banks wrongly crediting huge sums to a customer's account(some of whom promptly withdrew the money) and claimed the money back.

slimbloke

True - but in this case they said "you are entitled to a refund of x" rather than it being an admin error, but then someone more senior has overturned the decision... in all honesty, I'm paying it back aren't I...

dogshome

It pains me to write this, but
The 'Back-billing Agreement' is just agreement that the suppliers sign up to - It isn't a rule that they must abide by, by their licence terms. (Though it's fair bet that Ofgem the regulator saw the debt problems that late billing was causing customers and said "Sort this out or we'll sort it for you" )

The agreement is that where a supplier has failed to produce a bill for over 12 months, because the customer will suffer 'Bill Shock' when recieving a bill for more than 12 months supply on one demand, the supplier could only bill for the previous 12 months and forgoe payment for anything supplied prior to 12 months - The 12 month period runs back from the date that the supplier did manage to produce a bill

This operated until one of the suppliers, (n'power?), woke up to the fact that customers who were paying by monthly D/Debit did not suffer 'Bill Shock' as the credits they had built up on the account would cover the delayed bill when it did arrive.
The norm now is that D/Debit customers have little claim under Back-billing, whilst those on pay-on-reciept-of-bill tariffs have 100% cover

With the OP getting regular bills albeit Estimated, and then paying them, it seems the supplier can rightly claim there was no Bill Shock to the customer, and they are entitled to claim monies paid in error.

The only wriggle room I can see in this, is that the customer only had Estimated
Bills for years - The chances that the funds paid and the meter readings on these Estimated Bills proved to be 100% correct when an actual meter reading was eventually used, must be akin to winning the National Lottery twice over.
Maybe a letter to the supplier asking that they verify the demand by supplying the OP with a statement showing the opening reading on the account, which then follows through the Tariff changes, meter readings and charges, all the way through to the actual End Reading is an avenue to explore

footyguy

The back-billing agreement doesn't usually cover catch up bills.

However each claim will be individually assessed based on the individual merits of that claim. I would seem the supplierr has already decided it doesn't cover your complaint.
You have every right, as you are doing, to seek a second opinon by the independent ombudsman service.
(Not sure they will change the decision in this case though, unless you can give some extra evidence/facts that you believe the supplier has failed to properly consider in coming to their decision)

naedanger

slimbloke wrote: »

That is what the ombudsmen are saying too Hengus, and I'm getting 20 minutes free advice next week... but I thought there might be a case that that had already said I'm legally owed the money, that they then can't change their mind.

Is there anyone in this forum who is of a legal mind?

If you are getting legal advice ask if estoppel would apply in your case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

slimbloke

Thanks - how would this apply to my situation?

naedanger

slimbloke wrote: »

Thanks - how would this apply to my situation?

Short answer: I am not sure it would apply to your situation which is why I said ask your legal adviser.

Longer answer:

I am fairly sure your supplier is correct in saying you should never have been refunded. So I would not make that the substance of my complaint.

My compliant (provided all the following is true) would be that your supplier wrongly led you to believe you had £3000 more than you actually had (by telling you that you were owed this amount and actually paying it to you) which you have now spent in a way that you would not have done had you not been given this amount. As a result you would suffer a detriment if you have to repay this amount.

From the estoppel wiki entry:

"An estoppel by representation [of fact] will arise between A and B if the following elements are made out.

First, A makes a false representation of fact to B or to a group of which B was a member. [It is not necessary to demonstrate A knew that the representation was untrue.]

Second, in making the representation, A intended or [in the alternatively,] knew that it was likely to be acted upon.

Third, B, believing the representation, acts to its detriment in reliance on the representation. [It must have been reasonable to rely on the representation.]

Fourth, A subsequently seeks to deny the truth of the representation.

Fifth, no defence to the estoppel can be raised by A."

Consider yourself as "B" and your supplier as "A". Using the numbering from the above quotation:

Firstly A (your supplier) made a false representation to B (you) by falsely saying you were due money under the back billing code.

Secondly A clearly intended you to act on it because they paid you the money.

Thirdly you acted to your detriment if you disposed of this money in a way you would not otherwise have done. Note only you know if this is true. If you would not suffer a detriment (compared to if you had never received the money) by returning the money now, then I don't think you can claim "estoppel".

Fourthly your supplier is now saying their original statement (i.e. that you were due a refund) is false.

So it appears to me your case meets the requirements for estoppel (assuming you would suffer a detriment if you had to return the money now compared to if you had never received it).

---

By the way before taking any legal action against your supplier I would first complain to your supplier (without using any legal terms) that you will suffer a detriment (compared to if you had never received the money) by having to return it now. Then exhaust their complaint process including going to the Ombudsman (at the correct time). Frame your complaint in terms of what a reasonable person would consider fair (as the Ombudsman does not take a legal viewpoint). If you lose you can still take legal action. However if you start legal action then you cannot take your case to the Ombudsman. So two bites of the cherry if you only take legal action after exhausting the supplier's (and Ombudsman's) complaint process.

slimbloke

Legal advice said I need written or recorded evidence, not of being "billed wrongly" but of First Utility saying that they are refunding the money that I should not have paid.

Apparently, FD record ALL customer service phone calls, so I'm waiting to get those.

In the mean time, I guessed the email address of their Cheif Operating Officer and he replied! I spoke on the phone last night and he's helping me move forward (to whatever conclusion).