Fixed price deal tariff being increased

MWT

uk1 said:

What worries me about this is that this demand seems to be a cynical opportunist try-on and the majority of people will cave in and pay up.

Why is there no process that compels Octopus to disclose the numbers of customers involved in this “scam” and compel them to proactively  contact them all to both refund the overcharge and compensate them WITHOUT the cost being transferred onto other customers.  In other words making the directors pay.  They are paid performance related bonuses and there should be biting sanctions against them personally for malpractice. 

I’m pretty annoyed about this. 

What 'scam' ? The tariff was very well explained on the website and anyone who saw it and read the explanation knew full well that it was a tariff that would track the cap but remain a consistent amount below that cap.

Some people managed to get onto the tariff without getting that information and for them the way it was calculated came as a surprise, due to incorrect information being sent out after they agreed to the tariff, that was a service failing and it is appropriate that people who genuinely did not know about the tariff details are compensated.

It would be wholly inappropriate to assume that everyone on the tariff was similarly uninformed.

uk1

MWT said:

uk1 said:

What worries me about this is that this demand seems to be a cynical opportunist try-on and the majority of people will cave in and pay up.

Why is there no process that compels Octopus to disclose the numbers of customers involved in this “scam” and compel them to proactively  contact them all to both refund the overcharge and compensate them WITHOUT the cost being transferred onto other customers.  In other words making the directors pay.  They are paid performance related bonuses and there should be biting sanctions against them personally for malpractice. 

I’m pretty annoyed about this. 

What 'scam' ? The tariff was very well explained on the website and anyone who saw it and read the explanation knew full well that it was a tariff that would track the cap but remain a consistent amount below that cap.

Some people managed to get onto the tariff without getting that information and for them the way it was calculated came as a surprise, due to incorrect information being sent out after they agreed to the tariff, that was a service failing and it is appropriate that people who genuinely did not know about the tariff details are compensated.

It would be wholly inappropriate to assume that everyone on the tariff was similarly uninformed.

But that ISN’T what happened. 

“ It would be wholly inappropriate to assume that everyone on the tariff was similarly uninformed.”

Really?! I cannot believe that you think it right that they do nothing.

It is wholly appropriate to  know that some customers have been cheated - or who complained and were “fobbed off” and to do nothing about it but wait until they complai to the Ombudsman?!

If it was as straightforward as you claim why did it require four months of stress and need The Ombudsman to tell them to put it right?

Please point me to your source which shows that Octopus  has taken the ethical and proper  action of proactively identifying and contacting  those customers THAT MAY have been misled by their “errors” to ensure they are not wrongly paying the higher rate. 

THAT would be the wholly appropriate action.

Chrysalis

Interesting thread, from my perspective, the letter is written and obviously the way it was worded had the potential to mislead.  Unless a letter was sent after to correct the mistake (which seems wasnt done) I would expect the letter to hold enough meaning legally for a judgment to side with the customer, and if I was Octopus I wouldnt even let it go that far, clear error on their part and the obvious solution is to compensate the customers accordingly.

The fact people had to go to the ombudsman doesnt surprise me, I currently have my own complaint with Octopus and am now waiting for the 8 week cut off point (21 August).  It seems they have a habit of stonewalling when faced with decisions that would require them to compensate the customer.

However of course the fact the ombudsman awarded in favour of Octopus against one of the posters in this thread is alarming, this "get out of jail" card companies hold when errors are made seems to be applied far too leniently.

I feel in my own case logically they should see I have been very reasonable with Octopus, but I feel like it will be a lottery as they can find the strangest of reasons to side with companies.

uk1

Chrysalis said:

Interesting thread, from my perspective, the letter is written and obviously the way it was worded had the potential to mislead.  Unless a letter was sent after to correct the mistake (which seems wasnt done) I would expect the letter to hold enough meaning legally for a judgment to side with the customer, and if I was Octopus I wouldnt even let it go that far, clear error on their part and the obvious solution is to compensate the customers accordingly.

The fact people had to go to the ombudsman doesnt surprise me, I currently have my own complaint with Octopus and am now waiting for the 8 week cut off point (21 August).  It seems they have a habit of stonewalling when faced with decisions that would require them to compensate the customer.

However of course the fact the ombudsman awarded in favour of Octopus against one of the posters in this thread is alarming, this "get out of jail" card companies hold when errors are made seems to be applied far too leniently.

I feel in my own case logically they should see I have been very reasonable with Octopus, but I feel like it will be a lottery as they can find the strangest of reasons to side with companies.

Thanks. The idea that with something so basic as a fixed price offer and a misleading letter doesn’t to me sound “accidental”.

I don’t know the small print with this Ombudsman’s process but normally you needn’t wait if you ask for and receive a “deadlock letter” setting out the suppliers final position. State it is so you can escalate it to the Ombudsman.  This sometimes forces a resolution if the outcome looks “inevitable”.  Failing that!  You should then go straight to the Ombudsman.

Chrysalis

uk1 said:

Chrysalis said:

Interesting thread, from my perspective, the letter is written and obviously the way it was worded had the potential to mislead.  Unless a letter was sent after to correct the mistake (which seems wasnt done) I would expect the letter to hold enough meaning legally for a judgment to side with the customer, and if I was Octopus I wouldnt even let it go that far, clear error on their part and the obvious solution is to compensate the customers accordingly.

The fact people had to go to the ombudsman doesnt surprise me, I currently have my own complaint with Octopus and am now waiting for the 8 week cut off point (21 August).  It seems they have a habit of stonewalling when faced with decisions that would require them to compensate the customer.

However of course the fact the ombudsman awarded in favour of Octopus against one of the posters in this thread is alarming, this "get out of jail" card companies hold when errors are made seems to be applied far too leniently.

I feel in my own case logically they should see I have been very reasonable with Octopus, but I feel like it will be a lottery as they can find the strangest of reasons to side with companies.

Thanks. The idea that with something so basic as a fixed price offer and a misleading letter doesn’t to me sound “accidental”.

I don’t know the small print with this Ombudsman’s process but normally you needn’t wait if you ask for and receive a “deadlock letter” setting out the suppliers final position. State it is so you can escalate it to the Ombudsman.  This sometimes forces a resolution if the outcome looks “inevitable”.  Failing that!  You should then go straight to the Ombudsman.

Yes in my case I got no deadlock or a final decision, so have to wait the 8 weeks sadly.

uk1

Chrysalis said:

uk1 said:

Chrysalis said:

Interesting thread, from my perspective, the letter is written and obviously the way it was worded had the potential to mislead.  Unless a letter was sent after to correct the mistake (which seems wasnt done) I would expect the letter to hold enough meaning legally for a judgment to side with the customer, and if I was Octopus I wouldnt even let it go that far, clear error on their part and the obvious solution is to compensate the customers accordingly.

The fact people had to go to the ombudsman doesnt surprise me, I currently have my own complaint with Octopus and am now waiting for the 8 week cut off point (21 August).  It seems they have a habit of stonewalling when faced with decisions that would require them to compensate the customer.

However of course the fact the ombudsman awarded in favour of Octopus against one of the posters in this thread is alarming, this "get out of jail" card companies hold when errors are made seems to be applied far too leniently.

I feel in my own case logically they should see I have been very reasonable with Octopus, but I feel like it will be a lottery as they can find the strangest of reasons to side with companies.

Thanks. The idea that with something so basic as a fixed price offer and a misleading letter doesn’t to me sound “accidental”.

I don’t know the small print with this Ombudsman’s process but normally you needn’t wait if you ask for and receive a “deadlock letter” setting out the suppliers final position. State it is so you can escalate it to the Ombudsman.  This sometimes forces a resolution if the outcome looks “inevitable”.  Failing that!  You should then go straight to the Ombudsman.

Yes in my case I got no deadlock or a final decision, so have to wait the 8 weeks sadly.

They sound like a pretty disreputable bunch.  They are obligated to give you  a reason for rejecting your complaint in a timely manner. 

Dr75

Just a update on my particular case . The ombudsman sided with octopus then rejected my appeal and then I received another email from octopus asking if I wanted to accept the offer of £100 and an apology . I decided to reject it , I informed them of the people who had been put on the fixed option of the deal because the call centre staff apparently must of missed the check tariff part on the screen ,so if people who are trained to sell the product miss it how are people who aren't trained in selling it expected to know about it . I also asked for a service access request so they'd have to send me  copies of all the emails/phonecalls etc that had been made between myself and octopus . I also emailed the legal department of octopus and asked for an address to send a pre action protocol to . The day after I got a phonecall from a lady who had offered me £30 and a apology five months ago and now she was offering to swap me to the fixed option of the deal , refund the difference to last year and she did say she would extend it to 2024 instead of 2023 at last year's rates ( she hasn't done that bit yet though ,so I'm going to keep on till I get it ). She said it was apparently better for me so I wouldn't have to go to court ,but the way I see it if they were so sure I was wrong why ring up and offer after the ombudsman agreed with them . Anyway I took that option because going to court would of been to mush hassle and now my energy is sorted at a better price for at least a year . I hope this may help some people out because up until yesterday morning my streets level was going through the roof and I don't envy anyone stuck in that position 

uk1

Well done.  A great offer and you were wise to accept it.  I once had to take Scottish Power to court - it was daft they didn’t settle.  I won but it was a needless palaver. 

Dr75

I did think about trying to push for more but with the way things are going I'll be saving £1000s of pounds and I don't have the hassle and stress of going to court now

Chrysalis

Dr75 said:

Just a update on my particular case . The ombudsman sided with octopus then rejected my appeal and then I received another email from octopus asking if I wanted to accept the offer of £100 and an apology . I decided to reject it , I informed them of the people who had been put on the fixed option of the deal because the call centre staff apparently must of missed the check tariff part on the screen ,so if people who are trained to sell the product miss it how are people who aren't trained in selling it expected to know about it . I also asked for a service access request so they'd have to send me  copies of all the emails/phonecalls etc that had been made between myself and octopus . I also emailed the legal department of octopus and asked for an address to send a pre action protocol to . The day after I got a phonecall from a lady who had offered me £30 and a apology five months ago and now she was offering to swap me to the fixed option of the deal , refund the difference to last year and she did say she would extend it to 2024 instead of 2023 at last year's rates ( she hasn't done that bit yet though ,so I'm going to keep on till I get it ). She said it was apparently better for me so I wouldn't have to go to court ,but the way I see it if they were so sure I was wrong why ring up and offer after the ombudsman agreed with them . Anyway I took that option because going to court would of been to mush hassle and now my energy is sorted at a better price for at least a year . I hope this may help some people out because up until yesterday morning my streets level was going through the roof and I don't envy anyone stuck in that position 

Great news, does make you wonder how independent the Ombudsman actually are.  The fact they were not scared for you to escalate to them, but when you did the pre legal action, they **** their pants and caved.

Can I ask you what their legal email address is, also I will be doing a service access request myself.