Back billing principle

footyguy

dogshome wrote: »

The Back Billing Agreement is an agreement suppliers sign up to, it's not an edict by Ofgem but they do 'encourage' suppliers to sign up

...

The back billing code is indeed a voluntary code (or at least it was when it was introduced)

However,

Since 2007, Ofgem has secured a commitment from domestic energy suppliers to put a stop to customer back-billing for energy used more than 12 months ago, if the supplier was at fault for not sending a bill or billing incorrectly....

If your supplier has said that the back-billing principle or the Energy UK Code does not apply, and you are unhappy with their decision, you should first tell them and follow their complaints process

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/who-contact-if-its-difficult-paying-energy-bills/energy-back-billing-your-rights

The ombudsman service, if the complaint gets that far, will always consider the back billing principle, irrespective of whether or not the supplier has agreed to the voluntary code.
i.e. what was introduced as a voluntary code has now, in effect, become mainstream.

Cardew

I agree that the voluntary code is now effectively a 'regulation.

From the link you provided, this is the point that applies to the OP.

What is the back-billing principle?

Put simply,!if your supplier is at fault, it will not seek additional payment for unbilled energy used more than 12 months prior to the error being detected and a corrected bill being issued.

If the back billing principle has been applied to an account, it is widely understood that this means any charges for a period prior to the last 12 months will be written off. That will only apply if you have paid nothing.

footyguy

Cardew wrote: »

I agree that the voluntary code is now effectively a 'regulation.

From the link you provided, this is the point that applies to the OP.



If the back billing principle has been applied to an account, it is widely understood that this means any charges for a period prior to the last 12 months will be written off. That will only apply if you have paid nothing.

Spot on!

But even if you have paid something (which will be used to pay for what you have used), if you still owe money after that, that will still be written off.

Hence I did not understand how the OP claims money paid since any debt was written off was still going to that old debt. It cannot as there is no old debt.

Cardew

footyguy wrote: »

Spot on!

But even if you have paid something (which will be used to pay for what you have used), if you still owe money after that, that will still be written off.

Hence I did not understand how the OP claims money paid since any debt was written off was still going to that old debt. It cannot as there is no old debt.

As an example, let us take an example where you used exactly £2,000 over a two year period(from today's date -19/01/ 2017) and the bill for each year was £1,000.

If you paid £600 in the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016, and £700 in period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017. What would be the situation? It could either be:

A. The £400 you owed for the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016 would be written off, and you would have a £300 debit balance for the period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017.

or

B. From the total of £1,300 paid(£600 + £700) £1,000 would be taken to cover the £1,000 charge for the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016 and nothing would be written off. The remaining £300 credit would be set against the £1,000 charge for the period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017 and you would have a £700 debit balance.

I believe option B is being used now.

footyguy

Cardew wrote: »

As an example, let us take an example where you used exactly £2,000 over a two year period(from today's date -19/01/ 2017) and the bill for each year was £1,000.

If you paid £600 in the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016, and £700 in period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017. What would be the situation? It could either be:

A. The £400 you owed for the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016 would be written off, and you would have a £300 debit balance for the period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017.

or

B. From the total of £1,300 paid(£600 + £700) £1,000 would be taken to cover the £1,000 charge for the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016 and nothing would be written off. The remaining £300 credit would be set against the £1,000 charge for the period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017 and you would have a £700 debit balance.

I believe option B is being used now.

It depends on timing. But using your example (and assuming extra payments were made after the application of the BBP as the OP suggests happened), then I would say:

For the period 19/01/2015 to 19/01/2016 the bill would ordinarily amount to £1000. Less the £600 the customer paid, leaves a balance owed of £400 wich would be written off if the BBP applies.

For the period 19/01/2016 to 19/01/2017, the bill would be £1000. Less the £700 the customer has paid (since the application of the BBP principle to the account). Leaving a balance still owing of £300.

Which I think reflects your scenario A

stevegrass777

Npower refused to apply the back billing code as asked by the ombudsman,to my farthers account.
Never did get the money back.
It took them 15 months to get him an accurate bill,should have taken them court.
But was just happy to get rid of them.

footyguy

stevegrass777 wrote: »

Npower refused to apply the back billing code as asked by the ombudsman,to my farthers account.
Never did get the money back.
It took them 15 months to get him an accurate bill,should have taken them court.
But was just happy to get rid of them.

Was the ombudsman's proposed resolution accepted as full and final settlement of the dispute? If not, that's why it would not have been implemented. If it was, then you cannot take the matter to court (or if you do, it will fail, referring to the acceptance of the full & final resolution already proposed)

If the supplier failed to act in accordance with the ombudsman's proposed resolution (having been accepted by the customer) then the matter should be reverted back to the ombudsman as was hopefully explained at the time.