Neon Reef - any views?

MWT

beefturnmail said:

I'm no lawyer, but I would say It boils down to how serious a mistake was made and whether the other party (i.e. the consumer) should reasonably have realised that a mistake had been made.  I think in this case the mistake was both 'serious' in that it materially changed the nature of the contract ), and that the consumer could not have reasonably known an error was made.

That doesn't really stack up though, to maintain that the tariff was guaranteed you have to ignore that the same document also stated it was variable.

It was immediately apparent to anyone reading the whole document that there was a direct conflict in what was written and a mistake had been made. Only by reading part of the document could you fail to notice the problems.

BG staff made matters worse by not paying attention to the conflict when telling people who queried it that it was fixed.

There is also the Ofgem element to this which is that the contract which people were transferred to was the subject of contractual agreement between Ofgem and BG so there is no doubt at that level that the variable nature of the deemed contract was clear, it was only when communicating that to the affected consumers that the mistake crept in and was not promptly corrected.

I'm happy that BG have been making payments for their mistake, they really should feel some pain for the incompetence, but we can't pretend that there was an unambiguous promise of a fixed tariff when it was such a messed up document in the first place...

From the moment those emails went out and the tariffs went public we have been talking on here about the problems that were going to come when the tariffs went up in April...

ivanleo

beefturnmail said:

lisyloo said:

paulbounty3 said:

AbbieCadabra said:

i've just been had a very lengthy & very trying online chat with BG...

Second, they are categorically NOT accepting that the welcome info was misleading in any way. they don't agree that it was misleading to quote variable AND price guaranteed to & tariff ends dates as being confusing nor accept that any customers were given misleading info if they contacted BG at that time.
The removal of the price guaranteed date is not being admitted as a correction of their previous misleading info. 
Absolute, flat out, no reason for complaint - i was initially told "i'll open a complaint now & close it straight away as it isn't valid".

Just wouldn't listen to me no matter what i said!  i even advised that others with same complaint, specific to misleading info & NOT the price rise (they refused to accept i wasn't complaining about the price rise), had complained & received compensation. i was told this was incorrect as no compensation would be given for these circumstances.

first agent was bad enough but he put me through to his 'manager' when i refused to back down (i was still being polite!), & he was even worse. spoke to me like a complete idiot & got himself in a right mess trying to advise why the bills had been cancelled "due to multiple customer contacts", so it's my fault?? he got very snarky, absolutely no need to speak to anyone the way i've just been spoken to.

formal complaint now filed (via the online form) on the original misleading info and the way this chat was handled, appalling way to speak to a customer.

Same thing happend to me yesterday.

I am now making another complaint about the legally binding contract. 

british gas are in breach of legally binding contract (agreement) by removing the price guarantee without my consent.  

I think people have said many time this isn’t the right argument.
mistakes are not legally binding.
its better to argue compensation for the mistake and prove your loss as a result of it.

If if were the case that "mistakes are not legally binding" then anyone could legally back out/change any contract with a simple defence of "I made a mistake" e.g. I said I'd pay you £400k for your house when we exchanged contracts but on completion day, I'm terribly sorry, I made a mistake I meant £350k - my mistake is not legally binding so here's £350k for your house.

So it cant be true that no mistakes are legally binding.  

I'm no lawyer, but I would say It boils down to how serious a mistake was made and whether the other party (i.e. the consumer) should reasonably have realised that a mistake had been made.  I think in this case the mistake was both 'serious' in that it materially changed the nature of the contract ), and that the consumer could not have reasonably known an error was made.

Funnily enough if one looks up the case law on this, the courts have adopted exactly the approach beefturnmail suggests. I think the idea that a consumer should have realised there had been a mistake is for the birds.

Gerry1

I would have assumed that BG were far, far too big to have made such an elementary mistake, repeated it with other tariffs, not promptly realised it and not corrected it.

It would therefore have been completely reasonable to have interpreted it to mean that the SoLR price was fixed for an introductory period to soften the blow, and that it would then drop onto the variable capped rate after the expiration of the price guarantee period.

MWT

ivanleo said:

Funnily enough if one looks up the case law on this, the courts have adopted exactly the approach beefturnmail suggests. I think the idea that a consumer should have realised there had been a mistake is for the birds.

The difference here though is that we are talking about the communication of the description of the contract, not the actual formation of the contract.

The deemed contract terms were agreed with Ofgem, the customers were placed on the contract on those terms, the mistake was in the communication of those terms to the customers, and the potential for damages comes from what the customer did or did not do in reliance on that communication, and 'mistake' is at least a mitigating factor in assessing what damages if any are appropriate.

What isn't on the table is actually guaranteeing the price...

StartledJesus

I have just received another statement from BG, which is just what I needed at 22.48. This was totally unexpected, as on the app I am instructed to 'submit a meter reading in the next 13 days to get an accurate bill'. So obviously my intention was to submit a reading on the 31st March, the day before the price increase. Furthermore, I thought I was all done and dusted until that point, both in terms of bills and payments.

On the upside, BG were not chasing any more money. For reasons best known to them, they keep playing hokey cokey with the bills on my account - putting one in, taking one out, and then putting it back in. Effect of this - NIL.

Two other points of note -

1) It is STILL printed on the latest bill version that the tariff ends on 31st July 2022. 
2) The credit adjustment that I negotiated is referred to as 'Goodwill compensation'. Which sort of goes against the argument that it is either 'goodwill' OR 'compensation'. It would seem to be both! 

MWT

StartledJesus said:

1) It is STILL printed on the latest bill version that the tariff ends on 31st July 2022.

That part is correct and should not change.

After 31st July if you do nothing you will be moved to their standard variable tariff as the current tariff will end at that point, but that has no direct bearing on the price of the tariff.

LtMike77

LtMike77 said:

Yes BG were charging me their rate from the 21/10/21 using a correct reading given to NR. In my view that is not correct.

To be clear I fully expect to pay BG rates from the SOLR date 21/11/21 and I have a reading from this date that I submitted to NR. For the 21/10 to 21/11 should be paid at NR rates.

Any way I managed to get through to BG on chat eventually yesterday and they have amended the reading back to the correct reading for the 3/12 and just waiting for the bill to be produced. 

Will see want happens after this.

Woke up this morning to see an email from BG this morning saying I have a new bill, guess what they have amended it yet again using the opening read from the 21st October! Sigh.

brewerdave

No new bill(s) here - still says that the bill supplied 1st Feb has been cancelled and replaced - except it hasn't !!

Gerry1 said:

I would have assumed that BG were far, far too big to have made such an elementary mistake, repeated it with other tariffs, not promptly realised it and not corrected it.

It would therefore have been completely reasonable to have interpreted it to mean that the SoLR price was fixed for an introductory period to soften the blow, and that it would then drop onto the variable capped rate after the expiration of the price guarantee period.

That was almost exactly my argument with the first phone call with "executive" complaints - the lady agreed with me and said ,at least twice, that my tariff would not increase before 1st August !!

Stuart42

I worked out my 'loss' from 1/4 to 31/7 at £110.  I asked for £100.  They offered £40.  I got them up to £50 but after 2 attempts got to the stage where I thought it wasn't worth any more hassle.  Especially since the Ombudsman isn't certain to side with me.  The compensation was described as 'Miscellaneous document'

roseview

Now I have had a bill, it's been extended by 3 weeks from last bill date, uses estimates despite the fact that I've given several readings and the £100 gesture of goodwill has become £95.24 and the difference is vat charge 4.76. I should not have to pay vat on a gesture of goodwill, otherwise I'd have had it sent to me and then used it to pay against my bill.