Supplier Charging for Energy Not Consumed

wolfysmith

HENGUS - your last reply.... I have had all this, dontb waste your time. I take it you work for the Supplier as well.


Come on Martin, we the users need help here.

maisie_cat

I've just switched from Flow to Avro and despite me giving them readings they chose to use a different one. Because they both used the same reading I reasoned that the effort and stress of dealing with the bureaucracy of the companies wasn't worth my time. If the reads had been different I would have had to weigh the over or under charge vs my time

wolfysmith

Maisie Cat - noted.


But the issue is the behaviour and the Suppliers are getting away with millions when the reads don't match.


Where are you Martin?

System

wolfysmith wrote: »

Maisie Cat - noted.


But the issue is the behaviour and the Suppliers are getting away with millions when the reads don't match.


Where are you Martin?

Where is your evidence to support that assertion? I have switched more times than I can remember and my opening and closing readings have always been the same.

System

wolfysmith wrote: »

HENGUS - your last reply.... I have had all this, dontb waste your time. I take it you work for the Supplier as well.


Come on Martin, we the users need help here.

Be careful of what you assert, I have no links whatsoever to any supplier or any part of the energy industry.

ASavvyBuyer

Hengus wrote: »

Where is your evidence to support that assertion? I have switched more times than I can remember and my opening and closing readings have always been the same.

Same here; whenever we have switched the closing & opening readings have always been the same. And any refund or bill has always been promptly produced.

Helped an older relative do it a few times too, and again the readings have always matched.

System

maisie_cat wrote: »

I've just switched from Flow to Avro and despite me giving them readings they chose to use a different one. Because they both used the same reading I reasoned that the effort and stress of dealing with the bureaucracy of the companies wasn't worth my time. If the reads had been different I would have had to weigh the over or under charge vs my time

Maisie - as stated above, the verification process is designed to prevent fraud and meter reading errors. As posted on this forum recently, someone wanted advice on whether he should supply a false reading to the new supplier so that he could save a few £s because of the increase in energy prices.

Personally, I would prefer it if the industry reversed the process; that is, it always accepted the customer reading unless it was outside the industry verified figure readings dispute norms.

If you look at the difference in your unit prices, I suspect that you are looking at pence not £s. Sometimes the customer wins: sometimes the customer loses out.

Raxiel

wolfysmith wrote: »

HENGUS - your last reply.... I have had all this, dontb waste your time. I take it you work for the Supplier as well.

So anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid shill?

I have re-read your first post, and it is not clear that the two suppliers billed against different readings, just that you disagreed with the reading used by the loosing supplier.
It also states that you provided the final read to both suppliers, it's only later you stated the new supplier passed it on.

The regulars here deal with the same types of questions a lot, and when it looks like one of those frequent questions (a misunderstanding about third party verification for example) you can expect an answer on those lines.

If you think your question is misunderstood you can offer clarification (or you might be asked for clarification as Brewerdave did).

But it seems to me that you aren't here to ask a question, you're here to rabble rouse, so good luck with that.

wolfysmith

Come on folks..... The 'read' issue has been dealt with, the supplier paid up, it had to admit it failed and overcharged, it didn't give a damn about its Customer ........ THE ISSUE IS THE BEHAVIOUR AND THE PROCESS..... so tell me how the supplier can be stopped from doing what it did..... old lady, JAM, lost her husband, no help from Supplier, harassed, Supplier refused to refund the money on several occasions, had to get help to get her £20, Ombudsman was useless.


The process is broken.


HENGUS & ASavvyBuyer - 6m switchers per annum ...you do the maths ... it could be millions..... let OFGEM do the work to find out what's going on.


MARTIN - where are you? I'm being beaten up by the Suppliers

phillw

wolfysmith wrote: »

Went to Ombudsman, it agreed that supplier owes £20 but wanted to water down the deliberate overcharging and refusal to refund. Because I didn’t accept all of the findings it refused to instruct the Supplier to repay £20 even though it had agreed with the overcharge. Ombudsman refused to talk to me (end of process). In the Ombudsman response I was told that some of the issues should be taken up by OFGEM[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Nov 16 – I HAVE BEEN DUMPED - THE PROCESS TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS AND RECTIFY SUPPLIER BEHAVIOUR IS BROKEN.
Nov 16 – wrote again to CEO after pointing out the obvious that is was effectively unlawful. I received £20.
Jan 17 – wrote to OFGEM

• Why did I have to spend 12 months getting £20 refunded…. A regulatory issue?

You had to wait because you refused to accept the ombudsman's decision. The ombudsman is there for a cheap way to end disputes, they will often overlook fault on both sides if they can get an outcome where the customer gets the money that they are owed. I'm not sure why you'd put yourself through the extra hassle, but it's within your right to do so.