Help understanding bill back dating

MattMattMattUK

nickwol said:

[Deleted User] said:

Here goes. UW seems to think the the meter reading of 6856 on the 25th January was an actual/customer reading, as was the reading of 7171 on the 30th November.

It has reversed all the estimated bills between the reading of 6856 and 7171 BUT it has estimated readings for the 1st April and the 1st October when the tariff price changed.

I would sit down and do the cost calculations for each block to confirm. What UW has done is normal practice.

Actually i had worked out this is what they have done. It's very frustrating that they have re-estimated a bill that had already been paid and moved (used and paid for) units to a month where the unit cost is higher.

It may be normal practice, but surely its immoral  

Surely it is immoral to think you should not pay for what you use?

macman

Would it still be 'immoral' if the re-billing had worked in your favour?

Jyana

I don't get their reasoning that if you have used 20 or so units more than their estimates, then those units plus 28 previously billed ones must automatically be more expensive/recent ones rather than them still being evenly spread through the time period as before. In particular, using two thirds the amount of gas for a very mild Oct and first two weeks of November compared to the six months of April to October looks a little strange under their new workings out, and I would challenge that myself on the off chance they do rejiggle the numbers again.

But unfortunately, this is a classic example of what does happen when you don't keep on top of your energy readings. I would recommend sending them monthly ones from now on so they can always bill correctly in the future. Their algorithms can only do so much.

nickwol

Jyana said:

I don't get their reasoning that if you have used 20 or so units more than their estimates, then those units plus 28 previously billed ones must automatically be more expensive/recent ones rather than them still being evenly spread through the time period as before. In particular, using two thirds the amount of gas for a very mild Oct and first two weeks of November compared to the six months of April to October looks a little strange under their new workings out, and I would challenge that myself on the off chance they do rejiggle the numbers again.

But unfortunately, this is a classic example of what does happen when you don't keep on top of your energy readings. I would recommend sending them monthly ones from now on so they can always bill correctly in the future. Their algorithms can only do so much.

I had used just 1 unit more than their estimate, that's all, but they have moved 28 units from a cheaper rate earlier in the year to a more expensive rate that we have now.

nickwol

macman said:

Would it still be 'immoral' if the re-billing had worked in your favour?

My point is they shouldn't have needed to re work my bill at all, my bills for the year were all paid, all they needed to do was charge me for the extra units used against their estimate, which in this case was 1 unit.

MattMattMattUK said:

nickwol said:

Dolor said:

Here goes. UW seems to think the the meter reading of 6856 on the 25th January was an actual/customer reading, as was the reading of 7171 on the 30th November.

It has reversed all the estimated bills between the reading of 6856 and 7171 BUT it has estimated readings for the 1st April and the 1st October when the tariff price changed.

I would sit down and do the cost calculations for each block to confirm. What UW has done is normal practice.

Actually i had worked out this is what they have done. It's very frustrating that they have re-estimated a bill that had already been paid and moved (used and paid for) units to a month where the unit cost is higher.

It may be normal practice, but surely its immoral  

Surely it is immoral to think you should not pay for what you use?

@MattMattMattUK - I think you may be miss understanding my point, I had already paid for the units used, what they have done is now credit me back the payments already made earlier in the year and move those paid units to a more expensive month to be paid again at a higher rate.

[Deleted User]

Dolor said:

nickwol said:

Dolor said:

Here goes. UW seems to think the the meter reading of 6856 on the 25th January was an actual/customer reading, as was the reading of 7171 on the 30th November.

It has reversed all the estimated bills between the reading of 6856 and 7171 BUT it has estimated readings for the 1st April and the 1st October when the tariff price changed.

I would sit down and do the cost calculations for each block to confirm. What UW has done is normal practice.

Actually i had worked out this is what they have done. It's very frustrating that they have re-estimated a bill that had already been paid and moved (used and paid for) units to a month where the unit cost is higher.

It may be normal practice, but surely its immoral  

Every business in the land has the right to issue a corrected invoice. If the revised bill results in a debt, then under The Statute of Limitations the debt is actionable for up to 6 years. Ofgem even allows this for Final Bills even if they have been paid in full.

With respect, you are failing to understand how billing works. You are billed against actual meter readings; however, if you fail to provide them, the supplier uses estimates.

When you provide an actual meter reading, the supplier will recalculate your bills by removing as many estimates as possible. However, if you are on a variable tariff where prices changed on 1 April and 1 October, the supplier will calculate estimates for the tariff change dates. 

Yes, if your actual reading is different from your estimates you could end up paying for more units at a higher price.