BG Zero Fix October 22

400ixl

Foodie_Monster said:

Huh, so the fact that it hasn't updated for me as quickly might be a problem then. Thanks for the info. I'll try to go into their chat again and try to get another confirmation of the switch, see what's going on.

Not necessarily, it didn't show up for me for about 4 days (2 days were the weekend), haven't had an email as of yet.

It was the 4th attempt, previously I was told it was done and would take up to 7 days to show up. It never did, so I would try again, and this time it has shown up.

If it doesn't appear in 7 days then get back onto chat, if you do it before then, they will likely fob you off to say it is in process.

Foodie_Monster

400ixl said:

Foodie_Monster said:

Huh, so the fact that it hasn't updated for me as quickly might be a problem then. Thanks for the info. I'll try to go into their chat again and try to get another confirmation of the switch, see what's going on.

Not necessarily, it didn't show up for me for about 4 days (2 days were the weekend), haven't had an email as of yet.

It was the 4th attempt, previously I was told it was done and would take up to 7 days to show up. It never did, so I would try again, and this time it has shown up.

If it doesn't appear in 7 days then get back onto chat, if you do it before then, they will likely fob you off to say it is in process.

Thank you, I'll keep on top this and report back with whatever happens

QrizB

ivanleo said:

... it cannot be sensibly suggested that he was on a frolic of his own.

Now you're making me nostalgic for my A-Level in Law

ivanleo

lisyloo said:

I think we’ve just agreed :-)

Sanjay saying “yes I’ll request it” = non binding
being put on tarriff = binding

I don't think so, it is down to whether a court would take the view that a reasonable third party would be entitled to assume the agent was authorised to bind British Gas. Each case turns on its own facts, but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

I accept that if a consumer took a single conversation with a single agent as gospel, they'd be on more shakey ground.

MWT

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

Also, there is not generally any intermediate state between offer and acceptance, so there is no binding BG to agree to something, there is only the agreement or no agreement, anything else would be a representation and to the extent that a representation is relied upon to the detriment of the customer they may have a claim for damages, but not usually specific performance.

Gerry1

MWT said:

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

What evidence do you have that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake'?

MWT

Gerry1 said:

MWT said:

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

What evidence do you have that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake'?

I'm not going to go back over all that again, but it is clear from the problems and the multiple rejections that the tariff is not intended for new customers, or we wouldn't have to advise people to keep chat logs, raise complaints etc.

Just pointing out that when trying for a move to the tariff customers do not exactly have the moral high-ground, but as long as BG continue to ineffectively control access to the tariff, it is probably going to be possible to get onto it if one is persistent enough.

Gerry1

MWT said:

Gerry1 said:

MWT said:

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

What evidence do you have that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake'?

I'm not going to go back over all that again, but it is clear from the problems and the multiple rejections that the tariff is not intended for new customers, or we wouldn't have to advise people to keep chat logs, raise complaints etc.

Zero Fixed Oct 22 has exactly the same status as the Standard Variable tariff !

lisyloo

Gerry1 said:

MWT said:

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

What evidence do you have that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake'?

It’s not available through any of the normal switching routes e.g. online or via app.
it on a webpage with historical tarriff which is caveated.
i.e. this tarriff hasn’t been offered to the people applying.

Gerry1

lisyloo said:

Gerry1 said:

MWT said:

ivanleo said:

... but IMO where a reasonable consumer, having sought multiple confirmations from different chat agents had been told repeatedly that he could get the tariff, a court would find that the chat agents had bound BG.

When that reasonable consumer knows from the outset that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake' that would rather change the situation though

What evidence do you have that access to the requested tariff is a 'mistake'?

It’s not available through any of the normal switching routes e.g. online or via app.
it on a webpage with historical tarriff which is caveated.
i.e. this tarriff hasn’t been offered to the people applying

My switch was obtained via online Chat, admittedly with a bit of 'encouragement'...