Notice of Intent from Together Energy...

pochase

The EO decision is based on a back billing rule only valid for a licensed energy supplier. The EO decision will not be based on the fact if there is a debt, only if it can be collected under those rules.

If there is a debt, the company has 6 years to collect and I don't see how the EO decision does nothing to the proof that there is no debt, just that it could not be enforced as long as |together was holding a license.

ariarnia

pochase said:

The EO decision is based on a back billing rule only valid for a licensed energy supplier. The EO decision will not be based on the fact if there is a debt, only if it can be collected under those rules.

If there is a debt, the company has 6 years to collect and I don't see how the EO decision does nothing to the proof that there is no debt, just that it could not be enforced as long as |together was holding a license.

i have no idea what the outcome would be but if i was the op i would argue it couldnt be enforced because any debt (which hasn't yet been proven to exist) happened while the supplier was operating under licence and was covered by the back billing rules. the debt was in dispute so if thats about how much is owed that needs to be proven so thats the first hurdle for any collection to jump over. then to prove the debt is enforceable. 

MWT

ariarnia said:

pochase said:

The EO decision is based on a back billing rule only valid for a licensed energy supplier. The EO decision will not be based on the fact if there is a debt, only if it can be collected under those rules.

If there is a debt, the company has 6 years to collect and I don't see how the EO decision does nothing to the proof that there is no debt, just that it could not be enforced as long as |together was holding a license.

i have no idea what the outcome would be but if i was the op i would argue it couldnt be enforced because any debt (which hasn't yet been proven to exist) happened while the supplier was operating under licence and was covered by the back billing rules. the debt was in dispute so if thats about how much is owed that needs to be proven so thats the first hurdle for any collection to jump over. then to prove the debt is enforceable. 

Unfortunately, if the matter had been settled before TE lost their licence then the back-billing rules would have applied.

If the matter was still in dispute then the back-billing rules will have no effect as they do not survive the termination of the licence.

Proving the debt and agreeing the amount owed is still necessary of course, but the previous Ombudsman ruling isn't going to be of much help since the matter was not concluded at that time...

Ofgem asks the administrators of failed companies to respect the protections offered under the licence, but that is all they can do, ask, it has no weight, and since the legal obligation of an administrator is to recover as much money as possible to repay creditors, they have a legal obligation to ignore the request from Ofgem and do whatever is possible to get amounts owed by customers, paid...

EssexHebridean

Op - I appreciate this has been moved already but I would strongly suggest posting over on the DFW board where their are some real experts on the subject of debt who will be able to suggest your next steps.

ariarnia

MWT said:

ariarnia said:

pochase said:

The EO decision is based on a back billing rule only valid for a licensed energy supplier. The EO decision will not be based on the fact if there is a debt, only if it can be collected under those rules.

If there is a debt, the company has 6 years to collect and I don't see how the EO decision does nothing to the proof that there is no debt, just that it could not be enforced as long as |together was holding a license.

i have no idea what the outcome would be but if i was the op i would argue it couldnt be enforced because any debt (which hasn't yet been proven to exist) happened while the supplier was operating under licence and was covered by the back billing rules. the debt was in dispute so if thats about how much is owed that needs to be proven so thats the first hurdle for any collection to jump over. then to prove the debt is enforceable. 

Unfortunately, if the matter had been settled before TE lost their licence then the back-billing rules would have applied.

If the matter was still in dispute then the back-billing rules will have no effect as they do not survive the termination of the licence.

Proving the debt and agreeing the amount owed is still necessary of course, but the previous Ombudsman ruling isn't going to be of much help since the matter was not concluded at that time...

Ofgem asks the administrators of failed companies to respect the protections offered under the licence, but that is all they can do, ask, it has no weight, and since the legal obligation of an administrator is to recover as much money as possible to repay creditors, they have a legal obligation to ignore the request from Ofgem and do whatever is possible to get amounts owed by customers, paid...

i agree it would have all been easier if all sorted then but i can't see any harm in the op arguing the matter of the debt older than 12 months WAS settled by the ombudsman so the only matter outstanding is anything debt not covered by that 12 months. 

unless the op and the debt agency can come to an agreement then this would now be a small claims case and small claims are magistrate court. the administrator also has a legal obligation to weigh up if the cost of taking legal action is balanced by coming to an agreement with the op over the charges. and if the cases ive read about on the rental boards are anything to go by it really depends on who you have hearing your case so the better argument the op can put together the more likely they'll agree some compromise. 

brewerdave

Since I mentioned Facebook earlier, I've been on the group - there are literally 100s of ex customers attempting to agree their final balances with Together Energy/administrators - BG still haven't managed to sort out those in credit many months down the road and some of the debt amounts being claimed by FRP ,the administrators are absolutely ridiculous with no back up evidence.

sourcrates

mmunro2013 said:

I have just received in the post a Notice of Intent from Together Energy (TE), now ceased trading, asking me to pay an outstanding balance on my account with them (they are asking for £3673.67). I have been in dispute with them since 2019. There is a lot of history, however in short, I raised a complaint with the Ombudsman who found in my favor. All relates to Ofgem's back billing policies and suppliers charge recovery actions. TE originally emailed a Notice of Intent to me for the same amount on 19th July 2022 (which I disputed in emails). However, my question for this forum is how long is a Notice of Intent valid for? surely there is a time limit as to when I am expected to pay? (Even though I dispute the amount).

Never heard of a notice of intent, it`s not a legal document, I would say it was a fancy phrase their accounts manager has thought up in order to make you aware of the "possible consequences" of non-payment.

Their website states that, the Joint Administrators of Together Energy Limited act as agents and my guess is they will seek to re-coup as much outstanding debt as they can, before the company is wound up.

Now you will find once BG take over your account, they will use historic billing information in order to determine your new account set up, so this outstanding debt is going to cause you problems.

Information on their site is quite limited, but there is an email address to use if you have a dispute -

 support@togetherenergy.co.uk.

Now I would suggest to avoid any issues with your new supplier, you get in touch with TE and try and sort this out with them, so that your billing is correct, as this will cause you no end of issues going forward if you don`t.

mmunro2013

molerat said:

The problem is that OFGEM rules only apply to licenced energy suppliers so TE could argue the normal debt rules apply as they are not governed by OFGEM codes, it may be that they only need to prove the debt is valid to a court.  You need to be able to counter that with hard numbers.  Have you got copies of all bills, payments and meter readings from the period in question ?

I do have copies of all bills etc. from the TE portals (there were two of them as they transitioned from old to new)

mmunro2013

EssexHebridean said:

Op - I appreciate this has been moved already but I would strongly suggest posting over on the DFW board where their are some real experts on the subject of debt who will be able to suggest your next steps.

DFW board? Also, what does the acronym OP stand for please?

ariarnia

mmunro2013 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Op - I appreciate this has been moved already but I would strongly suggest posting over on the DFW board where their are some real experts on the subject of debt who will be able to suggest your next steps.

DFW board? Also, what does the acronym OP stand for please?

debt free wanna-be board (youve actually been moved again by a helpful mod it looks). 

OP is either original post or opening poster (so you or your first post on the thread)