Final gas reading wrong! OVO ripping me off!

liviboy

Hengus wrote: »

They have 70 years of historical data (if the property has been built that long) on which to assess the AQ for gas and EAC for electricity. Suppliers use this historical data, inter alia, to re-calculate monthly DD payments. There is nothing sinister going on here, and it may well be case that human error comes into play - particularly, with an IGT switch which involves a lot of manual processing/passing of data. This is why there is a Readings Dispute resolution procedure. This can be nothing more than a phone call between the two suppliers.

The house I'm in has been built 10 years, lay empty for 3 and had a stuck gas meter for god knows how long before I moved. Only discovered when I tried to setup my account with Atlantic Energy the day I got the keys. The meter was replaced around 4 weeks after I moved.

So their figures will be well out anyway for my property.

It just infuriates me as in no other transaction would you accept paying A for something supplies and priced by B because C says so!

System

liviboy wrote: »

It's called trust!

I would TOTALLY accept this argument IF my meter was read regularly but it isn't - every 2 years at best??

They don't trust you, or me or anyone else because people lie as they see it as a way of making a few £s. It follows that it is simpler just to check all switching meter readings. In your case, this validation appears to have gone wrong - it happens.

Your new supplier has no idea of your past meter readings: on switch, it is given access to your present AQ and EAC. Your old supplier does know your past history (I assume that you were giving Ovo regular meter readings). As Ovo was likely to gain from this situation, it could have done nothing but it now appears that they have been fair to you by raising a dispute. More usually, this would have been initiated by the gaining supplier as soon as it received the moderated meter reading and compared it with the one that you provided. This is why I believe BG has let you down. As said by me and others, it is now down to BG to resolve this matter for you.

Suppliers do not like IGT transfers as it is a manual process involving three parties. The much-heralded IT system, Project Nexus - which will automate parts of the IGT switching process - is over a year late and it is not now planned to go live before October of this year.

If you look at comparison tables, you will see that some suppliers will not accept IGT customers, and others pass on the IGT cost in the form of a £100 per year levy.

liviboy

OVO have now asked for a copy of my first bill from British Gas to compare.

I really am getting quite sick and tired of being called a liar in all but name.

liviboy

Hengus wrote: »

They don't trust you, or me or anyone else because people lie as they see it as a way of making a few £s. It follows that it is simpler just to check all switching meter readings. In your case, this validation appears to have gone wrong - it happens.

Your new supplier has no idea of your past meter readings: on switch, it is given access to your present AQ and EAC. Your old supplier does know your past history (I assume that you were giving Ovo regular meter readings). As Ovo was likely to gain from this situation, it could have done nothing but it now appears that they have been fair to you by raising a dispute. More usually, this would have been initiated by the gaining supplier as soon as it received the moderated meter reading and compared it with the one that you provided. This is why I believe BG has let you down. As said by me and others, it is now down to BG to resolve this matter for you.

Suppliers do not like IGT transfers as it is a manual process involving three parties. The much-heralded IT system, Project Nexus - which will automate parts of the IGT switching process - is over a year late and it is not now planned to go live before October of this year.

If you look at comparison tables, you will see that some suppliers will not accept IGT customers, and others pass on the IGT cost in the form of a £100 per year levy.

I don't understand why people keep saying that BG have let me down.

No they haven't. They have charged me accurately for gas supplied by them.

It is OVO who are letting me down by not using the reading which BG sent them, raising a dispute and being given a new reading which doesn't match to my expected usage, my monthly meter readings or with my opening reading with BG.

This issue is 100% a fault of OVO who automatically disputed 2918 for no apparent reason. (They also disputed my electric meter by the way and then blamed BG for raising it, even sending me a screenshot of the dispute system....turned out it was OVO after all! At the end of June I finally received my final electric bill, with the correct (but OVO disputed) reading.

BG, for all their faults with my switch to them, have billed me correctly.

Again I would argue that this is exactly the same as switching telephone provider and being charged for calls made on your new provider by your previous one. It just wouldn't be accepted - so why is it different with energy?

I don't give a damn if other people lie about their meter readings - I don't! I supplied the reading as requested. I don't see why I should be punished for switching-away (which is what it feels like...).

System

Ovo is reacting because it has received two meter readings which are more than 125CM3s apart. In your case, the difference is 165CM3s so something has gone amiss. Had the difference been less than 125CM3s then the suppliers would have accepted and used your reading. No one is accusing you of lying. The system exists to correct errors caused by those that do lie; those who read the meter incorrectly and so on.

This dispute will result in an agreed meter reading that both suppliers will have to use to close your old account, and open your new one. BG is at fault because having received the industry estimate, it should have noted the discrepancy with the figure that you provided and it should have raised the dispute as the gaining supplier. There is no way that the gaining supplier can validate the meter reading that you have provided without sending out a meter reader on the day of the transfer - which they don't do.

I have been where you are and got the scars to prove it. I had a discrepancy of 105CM3s which could not be disputed. I provided my new supplier with an actual meter reading on the day of the switch and had photographic evidence to prove it. I tried to get my gaining supplier to raise a dispute but my attempts failed because of the rules. It took me three months or so to reach the transfer reading. My gaining supplier - it just happens that it was Ovo - tried to tell me that I was benefitting by getting free gas!! In truth, once I got over my annoyance at the industry validation system, I realised that the delta additional cost to me was less than £2.50 which Ovo refunded to me.

badmemory

Surely, not accepting your reading IS accusing you of lying.

liviboy

Ok so I've now been sent a bil, dated today, with 2918 as my final reading.

Yet no response to my email.

So either:

1) The emails are all wrong and should never have been sent
2) OVO has worked bloody quickly in response to the request for British Gas' bill
3) The system is just stupid.

I now fully expect another bill
In a few days for the "outstanding" amount...

liviboy

badmemory wrote: »

Surely, not accepting your reading IS accusing you of lying.

Seems a pretty accurate to me.

If someone asks me a question and they don't believe my answer then by definition the accusation is that the answer is untrue.

System

As I said at post 7, these things are usually resolved with a phone call between the two suppliers. I am pleased that it has been resolved.

backfoot

Hengus wrote: »

They don't trust you, or me or anyone else because people lie as they see it as a way of making a few £s. It follows that it is simpler just to check all switching meter readings. In your case, this validation appears to have gone wrong - it happens.

How do you know this? Is it fact that this policy is a response to evidence of customers lying, or just your supposition?

Why does the validation go wrong? There was absolutely no reason for it to have done so in mine and many other cases which have been documented.

When did this system come into place? There seems to be more and more reports of spurious outcomes.

Have you worked in this area ? Nothing wrong with that, of course, but you seem to have in depth knowledge to be able to respond in the way you have.