Back billing when account is in credit

Rosabear

Would the back billing rules still apply with usage older than 12 months when the account is in credit (due to monthly direct debits), regular meter reads have been provided yet no bills produced? If so could you then reclaim the credit from the supplier?

Streaky_Bacon

The back billing rules will apply for any energy used, but not billed for within 12 months, regardless of what payments have been made.

Cardew

Streaky_Bacon wrote: »

The back billing rules will apply for any energy used, but not billed for within 12 months, regardless of what payments have been made.

Not sure what you are saying here. The 12 month back-billing provision only means that the cost of any energy supplied more than 12 months ago(and not billed etc etc) cannot normally be recovered.



However you cannot 'claim credit' from the supplier in your circumstances as any credit balance in your account will be used to offset the cost of energy you have used in the period over 12 months ago.


The principle of back billing means that you cannot be 'hit' with a bill for more than 12 months energy usage. In your case it doesn't apply as you are not getting 'hit' with any bill.


Loads of posts on this if you do a search.

Streaky_Bacon

Cardew wrote: »

However you cannot 'claim credit' from the supplier in your circumstances as any credit balance in your account will be used to offset the cost of energy you have used in the period over 12 months ago.

Depends upon whether you consider taking a direct debit as a "charge recovery action" (SLC 21BA), if the energy usage has not been billed.

From Ofgem

"Put simply, a supplier can’t seek additional payment for unbilled energy used more than 12 months prior to the error being detected and a corrected bill being issued. "

Retaining part of a credit balance to pay off units that were not billed within time, would seem to fall foul of that (if you interpret "seek[ing] additional payment" as including retaining part of a credit balance).

Have you seen this tested at the ombudsman?

Cardew

Streaky_Bacon wrote: »

Retaining part of a credit balance to pay off units that were not billed within time, would seem to fall foul of that (if you interpret "seek[ing] additional payment" as including retaining part of a credit balance).

Have you seen this tested at the ombudsman?

I understand your point, but with respect do not agree. Retaining payment already made(i.e. credit) IMO is not 'seeking additional payment'.



As I stated, there have been several posts from people who have had their credit balance retained.