The EO Process

[Deleted User]

Having submitted a complaint to EOS, the process has been massively improved. The Interim Decision showed that care had been taken by the investigating officer in reviewing all the evidence.  For its part, the supplier challenged one part of the Interim Decision: as is itsright. However, the supplier offered no new evidence in support of its Appeal but it was considered anyway.

EOS then appointed a new investigating officer who, in my case, upheld the supplier’s Appeal but offered no indication whatsoever in her adjudication as to why she had changed the original decision. I have no idea whether she looked at all the evidence or just tossed a coin which fell in the supplier’s favour. 

My rights going forward are limited. I can only Appeal against the Decision change if I provide additional information which, in my case, I cannot as the all evidence supporting my case has already been provided. The evidence pack from the supplier includes a counter to its own Appeal. I have asked EOS to explain the rationale for the Decision change but, so far, they have gone silent and deep. I am talking principles here not money: for any arbitration process to have consumer confidence it must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair. For its part, EOS is very dismissive of anybody criticising its processes. 

Mstty

What was your complaint?

[Deleted User]

Mstty said:

What was your complaint?

Final Billing errors: but that isn't the issue. I am not questioning the Decision per se all I have been trying to ascertain is how it was arrived at. Logically, I would have expected the Appeal investigator to explain why she has decided not to accept the judgement of her colleague, and why she believes that the Appeal is based on new evidence. I note that the supplier has declined to mention why the evidence that it has submitted is being submitted now.

The supplier has argued (and EOS appears to have accepted their argument)  that as I am due a Final Bill payment from a failed supplier, then it retrospectively has the right to re-instate charges that it has previously waived in writing (submitted by the supplier as part of their case file) as a 'balancing out' exercise.

If I was given the right of Appeal then I would argue that the two are in no way linked. The supplier is only acting as an agent of Ofgem in respect of the Final Bill credit: charges for the energy it has supplied is a totally separate issue.

It is similar to the  Landlord of an errant tenant who sells his tenant's furniture without consent to pay off some of the dues. A friend of mine that did this a few years ago ended up in Court. It cost him a lot of money.