Eversmart (remember them?) backbilling complaint rejected by Energy Ombudsman. What next?

Benjy123

Utilita took over my account from Eversmart after they went bust in 2019. In August this year I was billed by Utilita for energy consumed while I was with Utilita (from 2018 until September 2019). I feel I am protected against being backbilled for energy consumed before August 2019 (since I was billed by Utilita in August 2020), but the Ombudsman disagrees - they say because Utilita billed me within a year of them taking on my account, I am liable for the total invoiced amount even if its for energy consumed more than a year before the invoice.

I've got an opportunity to appeal this decision, which I'd like to do, but I want to know if there's any popular wisdom out there which might help me.

Gerry1

The omens are not good.

MWT

The rules are different when it comes to the SOLR, they get a pass on the usual time limits as of course they had no control or knowledge of the situation until they took over.

The spirit of the rules is that the supplier can't take forever to bill and go back as far as they want so the Ombudsman has applied the time limit reasonably I would say by basing it on the point at which Utilita took over...

Benjy123

Is it worth mentioning that during my time at Eversmart I had a direct debit, but was not once actually charged (or invoiced)?

The Ombudsman decision in that thread doesn't make any sense (or at least I can't get my head around it).

Section 21BA.1of Standard conditions of electricity supply licence

<p>21BA.1</p><p>Subject to paragraph
21BA.2, where the licensee or any Representative Issues a Bill to a
Domestic Customer or otherwise seeks to recover (including via a
Prepayment Meter) Charges for the Supply of Electricity from that
customer (hereafter a “charge recovery action”), they must only
do so in respect of:</p><p>(a)units of electricity which could reasonably be considered to have been
consumed within the 12 months preceding the date the charge recovery
action was taken; and</p><p>(b) where
applicable, amounts in respect of a Standing Charge or any other type
of supply charge accrued within the 12 months preceding the date the
charge recovery action was taken.</p>

The operative words being:

they must only
do so in respect of: units of electricity [...] consumed within the 12 months preceding the date the charge recovery action was takenwhere the licensee or any Representative Issues a Bill to a Domestic Customer [...] 

In my case (and the guy in the other thread), they issued a bill (a 'charge recovery action') for energy not consumed within 12 months of the recovery action. It seems open-and-shut to me?

Is there much precedence for how the courts interpret the backbilling rules? Has Ofgem published any clarifications?

MWT

The intent of the rule was to prevent 'bill shock' where a customer gets an unexpected charge that has built up over a long period through no fault of their own.

If you had a DD that was not being taken it is reasonable to assume that you would put that money aside as you knew you were using power that you would have to pay for at some point.

Was the eventual charge that you received significantly different to the amount you saved by not paying the DD each month?

Benjy123

The eventual charge is approximately what should have been paid for as a part of the direct debit mandate, but wasn't.

Eversmart went bust, presumably, because of their own shoddy account keeping and failure to bill customers appropriately. The rule says 12 months; I'm getting billed for energy consumed over two years ago. I can't see how the rules can be flat-out ignored like this?

rp1974

Benjy123 said:

The eventual charge is approximately what should have been paid for as a part of the direct debit mandate, but wasn't.

Eversmart went bust, presumably, because of their own shoddy account keeping and failure to bill customers appropriately. The rule says 12 months; I'm getting billed for energy consumed over two years ago. I can't see how the rules can be flat-out ignored like this?

What you,I,or the collective "internet" think about it is irrelevant,it's down to the ombudsman to decide upon as they see fit.
The ombudsman has already decided that your liable for this billing period,two choices are open to you,either appeal it or accept it.

MWT

Benjy123 said:

The eventual charge is approximately what should have been paid for as a part of the direct debit mandate, but wasn't.

Eversmart went bust, presumably, because of their own shoddy account keeping and failure to bill customers appropriately. The rule says 12 months; I'm getting billed for energy consumed over two years ago. I can't see how the rules can be flat-out ignored like this?

You can appeal, but generally you need to bring something new to the appeal not just that you don't like the outcome.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much you can add that would go to the reasons for the rule being there.

There was no 'bill shock' as you are only being asked to pay what you originally agreed to pay.

I'm sure we all understand the desire to get a years worth of power for free, but the back-billing rules were not put there to reward customers for successfully avoiding making payments they knew were due, for over 12 months...

So let's see if there is anything useful to work with in your specific case.

When exactly did you start with Eversmart in 2018? I ask so we can see if there was any period that was already over 12 months before they went bust in September 2019.

Just to confirm, Eversmart failed to send even one bill during your entire time with them?

How many times did you contact them to ask for a bill or to point out that they were not collecting your DD?

Also, when did you get your first bill from Utilita and what period did it cover? Did you set up a DD with Utilita and when did they collect their first payment from you?

absolutelynot

I was an Eversmart customer also. I was sent a letter by Utilita a year ago telling me to pay them some money. I emailed them asking where they got the amount from. They responded by  reducing it. I asked them again how the amount was calculated as I had been through all the details with Eversmart before I left them. They didn't provide a bill at all. All I got was a demand for money. They sent me the bills from Eversmart which I already had. Those all showed I had paid everything up! I asked them where the outstanding amount was on the bill. They did not answer. Now I have a new letter asking me for £47. I haven't responded yet. 
Is everyone else just getting a demand for money? I feel sure that an energy supplier is obliged to show a breakdown of usage and payments so it's clear what is outstanding. I'm tempted just to pay the amount to make them go away, but will they then find another "error" and bill the sucker again?

MWT

absolutelynot said:

Is everyone else just getting a demand for money? I feel sure that an energy supplier is obliged to show a breakdown of usage and payments so it's clear what is outstanding. I'm tempted just to pay the amount to make them go away, but will they then find another "error" and bill the sucker again?

In cases like this you will usually find that the energy supplier is acting as agent for the liquidator which is why they are slow to respond and do so with inadequate information as the liquidator needs to be consulted each time.

Stick to the request for specific details of where and how the debt was created.

Requests for payment without back-up are never going to succeed in a court should it ever come to that.

absolutelynot

I'd like to add a couple of points to my post above. 
1. I work in retail software. When our customers switch to our systems they often give us data to import from their customer accounts and billing. This is very often not great data. It is incomplete and not well organised - so that payments are not easily connected with invoices. My dealings with Utilita suggest to me that they inherited such a mess of data. I asked them for a breakdown of payments and charges and they failed to provide one. My 30 years experience of trying to sort out inherited data messes tells me that it's because they can't.
2. A breakdown of charges and payments showing a balance at the bottom is basic stuff for a utility company. Do they have any legal basis to charge you if they can't produce one?