Together Energy?

masonic

FestiveJoy wrote: »

Yes, because courts just love dealing with frivolous or vexatious claimants...:cool:


:xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

It isn't frivolous or vexatious if the firm does not comply with the decision. Ombudsman decisions were made legally enforceable for this reason.

FestiveJoy

masonic wrote: »

It isn't frivolous or vexatious if the firm does not comply with the decision. Ombudsman decisions were made legally enforceable for this reason.

I don't know about the legality of the ombudsmans decisions being enforced, but I do know the supplier has no option but to comply with the ombudsman's rulings.

If the full and final settlement has been reached, then there is no valid reason to attempt to take the matter to court.

The court will not allow the claim, as the court will undoubtedly be aware that a resolution has already been reached regarding the complaint.

To bring about a claim without without a valid reason or chance of success is, by definition, both frivolous and vexatious.


:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

masonic

FestiveJoy wrote: »

I don't know about the legality of the ombudsmans decisions being enforced, but I do know the supplier has no option but to comply with the ombudsman's rulings.

If the full and final settlement has been reached, then there is no valid reason to attempt to take the matter to court.

The court will not allow the claim, as the court will undoubtedly be aware that a resolution has already been reached regarding the complaint.

To bring about a claim without without a valid reason or chance of success is, by definition, both frivolous and vexatious.


:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

I agree in instances where a settlement has been agreed and paid there would be no further recourse.

I'm not fully au fait with the energy ombudsman, but the financial ombudsmen publishes specific advice about enforcing decisions: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/factsheets/enforcing-an-ombudsmans-decision.pdf

It may be the case that there is weaker protection in the energy sector. That would be disappointing but not surprising.

P.R

If someone could help on the issue below, it will be greatly appreciated!

My parents are currently with Tonik Energy & their Positively Green v5 fixed tariff (1yr) recently ended last week. They were paying £67 per month and in process of moving to new suppliers at the start of January.

All bills have been paid, until they receive the last bill when the switch of suppliers occurs.

The concern they have is on their account it shows they are in Debit (due to more gas/electric being used whilst they were on the fixed tariff price) but will this amount need to be paid as part of the last bill, even though they were on a fixed tariff?

FestiveJoy

P.R wrote: »

If someone could help on the issue below, it will be greatly appreciated!

My parents are currently with Tonik Energy & their Positively Green v5 fixed tariff (1yr) recently ended last week. They were paying £67 per month and in process of moving to new suppliers at the start of January.

All bills have been paid, until they receive the last bill when the switch of suppliers occurs.

The concern they have is on their account it shows they are in Debit (due to more gas/electric being used whilst they were on the fixed tariff price) but will this amount need to be paid as part of the last bill, even though they were on a fixed tariff?

Welcome to MSE.

If you and your parents really want to know if they will be expected to pay for the energy they have consumed whilst with Tonic Energy, I would suggest you start your own thread asking that question.

This thread is discussing energy supplier Together Energy.


:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

FestiveJoy

masonic wrote: »

Have you considered filing a moneyclaim online? You can add any costs on to your claim, including the cost of sending bailiffs to recover the money if it comes to that.

masonic wrote: »

I agree in instances where a settlement has been agreed and paid there would be no further recourse.

I'm not fully au fait with the energy ombudsman, but the financial ombudsmen publishes specific advice about enforcing decisions: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/factsheets/enforcing-an-ombudsmans-decision.pdf

It may be the case that there is weaker protection in the energy sector. That would be disappointing but not surprising.

Oh I see your mistake now, confusing energy with financial services.:cool:

The Financial Ombudsman Service has the power to awards of up to £150k, whilst the Energy Ombudsman can only offer awards of up to £10k and they usually only get involved in resolving disputes in the order of £100s if that.

However, in both cases, a final resolution ruling by the ombudsman (that has been agreed by the consumer) is binding on both sides.

As the link says

In almost all cases upheld by the Financial Ombudsman Service, the business does this without a problem.

and so it follows

...it’s unusual for our decisions to have to be enforced...

But perhaps you can understand that a financial service provider (that may not necessarily be a £multi-billion bank, but could just as easily be a one man operator) may struggle to pay an award of up to £150k, legislation has been put in place to ask a court to enforce it as though the ombudsman ruling were a court judgement/order.

That situation probably arises even less when you are talking of say £100 remedy. Hence the Energy Ombudsman can use their own Remedy Implementation Team to enforce rulings, rather than expect courts to have to get involved.

But it should also be highlighted that the link you provided specifically states that those wishing to enforce a ruling of the Financial Ombudsman Sevice in court should not do so by starting a new claim in court.

If you tried to sue the business, it could be able to reargue the merits of your case (in other words, whether your complaint is justified) – and the outcome might not be the same.

Rather you should ask the court to enforce the order already decided by the FOS.

You cannot do this using moneyclaimonline, because, as the name implies, you use moneyclaimonline to start a money claim online.

:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

masonic

There's an interesting discussion on this topic (not specific to financial services) in last week's FT money podcast.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a95599d-5163-4245-bc4b-b29c19b46f3e starts at 17:22

masonic

FestiveJoy wrote: »

Oh I see your mistake now, confusing energy with financial services.:cool:

My mistake was assuming Ombudsman services were more or less equivalent. It is indeed rare a business will not comply with a decision, but there is an instance where this may happen in the case of TSB and one detailed in this thread. A moneyclaim can be used when there is compensation awarded but not paid. However, if an Energy Ombudsman decision is not legally enforceable, then this may not be straightforward or even possible and perhaps using the Ombudsman service is not the best course of action.

FestiveJoy

masonic wrote: »

There's an interesting discussion on this topic (not specific to financial services) in last week's FT money podcast.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a95599d-5163-4245-bc4b-b29c19b46f3e starts at 17:22

I'm not sure what relevance that has to Together Energy, or even energy at all. :huh:

Here is the article that was being spoken about

FT readers’ victories in the small claims court

From having a car clamped wrongly to cracks in a wall caused by a neighbour’s new basement

https://www.ft.com/content/cfbbc55a-fe20-11e8-b03f-bc62050f3c4e

and it's generally about going to small claims court.

Admitedly, there is a reference at the beginning of the discussion recording to the FOS, but otherwsie about successes in court

As the article I link to ends

In most cases, a settlement will be reached before the small claims court hearing. Saying “I’ll see you in court” is simply a threat — but it has to be credible for a consumer to win their case.

Courts should only be used as a last resort, not as the first port of call.
The ombudsman is essentially a form of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and courts will always encourage their use to avoid taking up valuable court time dealing with issues that do not need a court to resolve.

Remember, it is always up to the consumer to decide whether or not to accept the resolution proposed by the ombudsman, but where it is agreed, it then becomes binding on the supplier.
If the consumer does not accept the ombudsman proposed resolution, they always have the option to then escalate the matter to court (but they should expect the court to be informed of what the ombudsman proposed as I would expect the defendant infortm the court even if the claimaant doesn't)

If the court comes to the same (or even lower) conclusion as to a resolution that the ombudsman had previously offered, you may have to fight hard to get court costs & expenses added to the claim, as they are ultimately for the court to decide who to award them to (if anyone)

Finally, you cannot do it the other way round. i.e. the ombudsman will not consider any complaint if legal action has already been instigated (but you may be able to find an alternative ADR who will in an attempt to resolve the matter prior to a court hearing)

Fromply

From the Energy Ombudsman website:

If you accept the resolution, the provider has to comply.

Your provider is bound to the resolution if you choose to accept it. We have a specialist team on hand that works alongside providers to get the remedy implemented.
If your supplier hasn’t complied within reasonable time and you’ve chased them on the matter, you are free to enforce the resolution in court as the decision was legally binding.

https://www.ombudsman-services.org/how-it-works/process