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

MWT

I can see why you had problems with the Ombudsman.

So in summary, you made no payments, submitted no meter readings, received no bills, did not check the online portal so you do not actually know if any bills were issued or not, did not ask why there were no bills or why your DD wasn't being taken and you'd like that years energy to be free

By all accounts, Eversmart were really poor at sending out bills and updating their portal but you have done nothing that a 'reasonable' customer would be expected to do either so it is difficult to make a solid case, and when the Ombudsman was presented with a bill from Utilita for roughly the amount you had agreed to pay for that year and zero activity from you it wasn't likely to go in your favour...

Benjy123

The point I'm looking to get addressed is whether the licence terms that Ofgem set are actually binding, or whether they're merely guidelines. If they're the latter then I can continue my life on the understanding that the 12 months clause (and maybe other rules in the operators licence) are unenforceable, but if it's the former then I'll let it go to small claims.

The terms go on to describe a condition where the consumer is not protected from back billing when:

the licensee has been unable to take a charge recovery action for the correct amount of electricity consumed due to obstructive or manifestly unreasonable behaviour of the Domestic Customer;

Is it obstructive to set up a direct debit? Is it unseasonable to assume that Eversmart's creditors would be prompt in invoicing for any debts?

rp1974

Benjy123 said:

The point I'm looking to get addressed is whether the licence terms that Ofgem set are actually binding, or whether they're merely guidelines. If they're the latter then I can continue my life on the understanding that the 12 months clause (and maybe other rules in the operators licence) are unenforceable, but if it's the former then I'll let it go to small claims.

The terms go on to describe a condition where the consumer is not protected from back billing when:

the licensee has been unable to take a charge recovery action for the correct amount of electricity consumed due to obstructive or manifestly unreasonable behaviour of the Domestic Customer;

Is it obstructive to set up a direct debit? Is it unseasonable to assume that Eversmart's creditors would be prompt in invoicing for any debts?

You dont consider any of your actions obstructve or manifestly unreasonable behaviour?.
Good luck taking this to small claims,you'll need it.

Benjy123

I don't, no. And it seems neither does Ofgem.

In their consultation document "Protecting consumers who receive backbills. 2017" they expand somewhat on what they consider unreasonable:

We do not intend this principle [the rules on backbilling] to require that consumers should be actively involved in the billing process. For example, we would not consider a consumer to have behaved obstructively or manifestly unreasonably if they fail to notice or report that they are being billed on estimates. However, it is our intention that consumers are likely to fall within this exception if the supplier identifies a problem, makes reasonable requests to access the meter, and consumers ignore or refuse them. It will be up to suppliers to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the backbilling limit applies. 

They go on...

Other examples of circumstances we consider would be covered by this exemption include:

The consumer behaves unlawfully 

The consumer prevents access to the meter 

Not doing Eversmart's job for them is not acting unreasonably. This wasn't the reason of the Ombudsman however; their explanation was that the 12 month window renews (for all debt back in time, even over a year) when a SoLR takes over. This seems completely divorced from any rule or caselaw I can find.

rp1974

As per previous just cant see that court will change anything,best of luck whatever route you take.

MWT

Benjy123 said:

Not doing Eversmart's job for them is not acting unreasonably. This wasn't the reason of the Ombudsman however; their explanation was that the 12 month window renews (for all debt back in time, even over a year) when a SoLR takes over. This seems completely divorced from any rule or caselaw I can find.

It is in line with the way they waive the other requirements of the licence like the time limits for issuing final bills when a SoLR is appointed...

The other problem you have is that you don't even know if you had bills waiting for you on the portal, if the bills were there they would have 6 years to chase you for payment...

The small claims court isn't even an option for you either as they do not owe you money, you can't take a case there to stop someone claiming you owe them...