British Gas not honouring promise to match or beat RHE's deal

MWT

MoneySavingNovice said:

“….I've checked with our advocate team and there is no way we can amend the system to extend this. Therefore, we're unable to complete this remedy and therefore cannot accept the decision.”

Which is a farcical argument to say the least.

I would propose to them that they credit your account with the monetary equivalent of doing as the Ombudsman had ruled, clearly their systems could cope with that I'm sure as it is mostly a manual process...

MoneySavingNovice

UnclaimedEnergy said:

Ah... yeah with all the supplier exits due to mismanagement/offering tariffs they can't afford, I forget which ones are bought out or busts... Sorry.

You don't need to apologise,  I was just pointing out that the definitive statement you made was in fact incorrect.

Still, The ASA won't really do anything about it. They upheld a complaint about Outfox the Market in 2019 by falsely advertising themselves as the cheapest energy supplier when they weren't all the time. However all that they said was that "The ads must not appear again in their current form". Link

Reasonable question.   When the likes of British Gas make clear commitments yet immediately fail to follow through and in effect demonstrates that they are dishonest,  they need to be brought to account.   Sadly without the investment in a lengthy court case, the Ombudsman and the ASA are the only realist options for a consumer for the likes of British Gas to be taken to task....unless you have another suggestion?

MWT said:

I would propose to them that they credit your account with the monetary equivalent of doing as the Ombudsman had ruled, clearly their systems could cope with that I'm sure as it is mostly a manual process...

Can see where you are coming from,  however, the commitment from British Gas is clear and for me personally I don't believe that a cash payment would put me back in the same position as I was before British Gas took over Robin Hood...for reasons which I won't bore you with here.  I have therefore asked the  Ombudsman to reject the appeal and enforce the remedies they have detailed without change.

Grizzlebeard

MoneySavingNovice said:

...for reasons which I won't bore you with here.  I have therefore asked the  Ombudsman to reject the appeal and enforce the remedies they have detailed without change.

I think this is the best next step, and may well succeed.

I'm having similar problems with BG since they took over my Ebico account. Their promised Tariff was point-for-point identical to Ebico's, but when the contract came through in the Welcome Letter prices had increased 5% and I'd been moved from DD to Cash/Cheque.
Many attempts to reinstate DD after complaining via Resolver have failed.
2 emails from BG said my DD had been set up, but the DDs have not been used and they're still sending me bills at the inflated price. There are no explanations or information from them, but I expect they've a minimum DD limit which many of us are below.
It's a typical case of "Computer says no! We're not telling you why."
Even the BG Customer Support Lady who set up a DD for the second time was not aware it would fail, l and the computer she was typing into didn't flag up a problem.

Since many Ebico customers would have been low income/low energy users on ZeroSC tariffs I bet this has happened to many hundreds (or thousands) of us. Should be a class action that remedies for all. I've lost more in time and frustration than the £10s it will put on a years worth of energy.
Still contemplating my next step.

[Deleted User]

The problem that the OP has got is summed up here (courtesy of Martin Lewis’ submission to an All Party Parliamentary Group):

’ ‘Some have statutory powers, compulsory membership in their sector, and statutory powers to enforce their decisions in court. In key markets, such as financial services and energy, there is also a strong regulator in addition to (and alongside) the ombudsman. At the other end of the scale, there are some ombudsmen who can’t force companies to be members, nor to comply with processes or decisions. They also can’t enforce their decisions in court if and when they are ignored – which consumers tell us is often.’

The Energy Ombudsman is very much the runt of the Ombudsman Services Litter; ie, its enforcement powers are little more than a telling off and a report to Ofgem. The decisions of some other ombudsmen have the equivalent power of a Court behind them. It follows that if an energy supplier fails to comply with a Decision, then the complainant has one option left which is to take the supplier to Court with the backing of The Ombudsman’s Decision. It should be a pretty simple exercise to work out the additional cost, and then decide whether it is worth it. 

Grizzlebeard

I would regard the terms of the offer made in the first introductory e-mail, complete with a link to "Join now" as a "deemed contract", and the alterations in the Welcome Letter, (without previous sight of Terms & Conditions), is a breech of contract. Section 24 in the T&Cs clearly states they will give a clear 30 days notice of changes. Since the changes were made retrospective, to before the T&Cs were even made available, British Gas is clearly in the wrong.
Tell the Ombudsman to tell the Regulator that!
Haa haa ha haaa... (evil laugh!)

MWT

MoneySavingNovice said:

MWT said:

I would propose to them that they credit your account with the monetary equivalent of doing as the Ombudsman had ruled, clearly their systems could cope with that I'm sure as it is mostly a manual process...

Can see where you are coming from,  however, the commitment from British Gas is clear and for me personally I don't believe that a cash payment would put me back in the same position as I was before British Gas took over Robin Hood...for reasons which I won't bore you with here.  I have therefore asked the  Ombudsman to reject the appeal and enforce the remedies they have detailed without change.

I understand, but the Ombudsman doesn't have the power to force them to do something they claim their systems cannot do, so always try to go for something they cannot reasonably refuse.

Similarly you are not going to be put back in the same position as you were, but you should be able to pay no more than you would have done for the term of the original contract as per the original BG 'promise'.

MoneySavingNovice

I understand, but the Ombudsman doesn't have the power to force them to do something they claim their systems cannot do, so always try to go for something they cannot reasonably refuse.

Similarly you are not going to be put back in the same position as you were, but you should be able to pay no more than you would have done for the term of the original contract as per the original BG 'promise'.

A very good point,  however, the Ombudsman may not be able to do this (despite the fact the British Gas have made a commitment to abide by the Ombudsman's rulings),  however, there exists a contract that clearly states what obligations they have.  The Ombudsman's ruling in this part is, in effect,  an instruction to British Gas to abide by the contractual obligation which they have entered into.   Hence while the Ombudsman may not be able to force them to do this the courts can.  The problem is that a request for 'Specific Performance' is difficult, to say the least,  so the only realistic way forward would be to pursue being in a not worse position than a would have been if British Gas had not attempted to evade its contractual obligations.

Grizzlebeard said:

Since many Ebico customers would have been low income/low energy users on ZeroSC tariffs I bet this has happened to many hundreds (or thousands) of us. Should be a class action that remedies for all. I've lost more in time and frustration than the £10s it will put on a years worth of energy.

Well said...personally, I don't think that it is in any way unreasonable to expect British Gas to abide by the contract that they have entered into.   If the situation was reversed and it was us trying to evade our contractual commitments I'm sure that British Gas would be very proactive to insist that we meet those contractual obligations.  Just because British Gas is a large organisation does not mean that they have the right in law to renege on the contract which is in place.   Sometimes they should be reminded of this fact.

The only question I have personally is how far I want to push this. British Gas is assuming that I will not be taking this to court.  I’m actually expecting to take this to court,  the only real question which court and for what?

[Deleted User]

I’m actually expecting to take this to court,  the only real question which court and for what?

The Small Claims Court is by far the cheapest and simplest option which is why I suggested that you work out how much you are out of pocket. Fighting a battle about contract law would no doubt end up in a different Court. Only you can decide whether the principle is worth all the stress.

Grizzlebeard

Dolor said:

I’m actually expecting to take this to court,  the only real question which court and for what?

The Small Claims Court is by far the cheapest and simplest option which is why I suggested that you work out how much you are out of pocket. Fighting a battle about contract law would no doubt end up in a different Court. Only you can decide whether the principle is worth all the stress.

It would cost BG much more to defend their position in a Small Claims Court than to settle directly, without admission of wrong doing. Most Large Organisations lose by default because they do not attend to defend their position. Many, but I can't say it's all, concede on the threat of SC Court. They have to decide if the court will dismiss the case as frivolous. In my case other than the hastlement (New word I just invented) and a sense of injustice the court may conclude my case is frivolous as winning it would only save me around £10 over the term of my contract. The Courts do not take lightly to inflated claims for compensation for inconvenience or phantom costs.
By denying my request to pay by DD (which I was with Ebico) they have forced me onto a more expensive tariff without my consent.
BG really aren't interested in retaining the business of low energy users, and would be happy to be shot of a typical Ebico customer. Perhaps this is actually a strategy to get them to leave? I don't know, but they are misusing the provision of T&C section 24/25 to justify an 5% price increase. Sec24 says they should have given me 30 days notice if they made the decision. The lack of notice implies they are invoking Sec 25 as if the change of payment method was at my request.
For those who've been given a shorter fixed term, that's a simple breech of contractual obligation which they cannot justify by any "small print" interpretation.

MoneySavingNovice

Grizzlebeard said:

It would cost BG much more to defend their position in a Small Claims Court than to settle directly, without admission of wrong doing. Most Large Organisations lose by default because they do not attend to defend their position. Many, but I can't say it's all, concede on the threat of SC Court.

Very true,    but the complaint I made to the Ombudsman would have also cost them more to defend than conceded in the first place....but they weren't prepared to do that despite my view that it was an 'open and shut case' and they didn't have any realistic prospect of winning.  Yet still, they seem to be arguing,  so I guess they believe that this is worth their while despite having a low to no prospect of winning.

They have to decide if the court will dismiss the case as frivolous. In my case other than the hastlement (New word I just invented) and a sense of injustice the court may conclude my case is frivolous as winning it would only save me around £10 over the term of my contract. The Courts do not take lightly to inflated claims for compensation for inconvenience or phantom costs.

True,  but if a claim is made only for direct and demonstrable losses and reasonable costs even if its a low amount a court will not usually decide its a frivolous case.  As you say,  that only tends to happen when there is not a solid case in the first place or where inflated claims are made.

By denying my request to pay by DD (which I was with Ebico) they have forced me onto a more expensive tariff without my consent.......but they are misusing the provision of T&C section 24/25 to justify an 5% price increase. Sec24 says they should have given me 30 days notice if they made the decision. The lack of notice implies they are invoking Sec 25 as if the change of payment method was at my request.

I think that this could also be a breach of contract.   It's most definitely unreasonable behaviour.   I think you should take this to the Ombudsman,   it sounds like you have a solid case.

BG really aren't interested in retaining the business of low energy users, and would be happy to be shot of a typical Ebico customer.

It's looking like that,   but it does highlight the question of why approach this in such a heavy-handed manner?  They could have just waited for the contracts to run-out. 

For those who've been given a shorter fixed term, that's a simple breech of contractual obligation which they cannot justify by any "small print" interpretation.

The Ombudsman seems to be in agreement with this point of view as well....yet British Gas are still in denial despite having at least my case (and I happen to know that there are many others)  be found against them