High gas usage

Roly98

Robin9 said:

That opening reading should tie in with the previous tenant  

I have found a closing read for the previous tenant of 3031.967 as at 6th June. My read is 11 July 

EssexHebridean

Roly98 said:

Can I just ask... the opening reading which was on my welcome letter from BG, was 30330. I didn't take that reading...I assume the housing association did.
The volume reading now is 03093. 
Do those 2 figures tally? I mean, one starts with 30 the other starts with 03? 

Roly98 said:

Robin9 said:

That opening reading should tie in with the previous tenant  

I have found a closing read for the previous tenant of 3031.967 as at 6th June. My read is 11 July 

OK - indulge me for a moment, I'm wondering whether I can see how the readings have been confused, but accepted. 3031.967 at 6th June, would be a reading of the correct screen of the meter but should not have included the digits after the decimal point. The OP's opening reading at just over a month later on the welcome letter from BG was 30330. 

Is it too much of a leap of faith to consider that BG have erroneously got the first digit after the decimal included some where along the line, and so the incorrect M3 reading has come from them thinking that they had a 5-digit, not a 4-digit reading? 30330 - 30319 = 11 units of gas used between the two dates by their reckoning - which might be perfectly possible but in this case has been arrived at by simple coincidence? It would certainly explain why they cannot see why there is a problem.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

I posted this yesterday which ties in,

frugalmacdugal said:

Hi,

Roly98 said:

Ok so I actually have the closing reading of the previous tenant who was with OVO ...it reads 3031.967
My welcome letter from BG states my actual reading is 30330
I spoke to somebody from BG on the phone as I did not understand how to read the meter... you tube info stated they may want one of 2 readings which confused me. 
The first reading I gave them was 34038...I was told this was the right reading. 

so, divide 34699kWh {from your 2nd photie) by 11.2? = 3098 volume reading, which allowing for usage since you moved in, ties in with closing reading of 3031.

Roly98

EssexHebridean said:

Roly98 said:

Can I just ask... the opening reading which was on my welcome letter from BG, was 30330. I didn't take that reading...I assume the housing association did.
The volume reading now is 03093. 
Do those 2 figures tally? I mean, one starts with 30 the other starts with 03? 

Roly98 said:

Robin9 said:

That opening reading should tie in with the previous tenant  

I have found a closing read for the previous tenant of 3031.967 as at 6th June. My read is 11 July 

OK - indulge me for a moment, I'm wondering whether I can see how the readings have been confused, but accepted. 3031.967 at 6th June, would be a reading of the correct screen of the meter but should not have included the digits after the decimal point. The OP's opening reading at just over a month later on the welcome letter from BG was 30330. 

Is it too much of a leap of faith to consider that BG have erroneously got the first digit after the decimal included some where along the line, and so the incorrect M3 reading has come from them thinking that they had a 5-digit, not a 4-digit reading? 30330 - 30319 = 11 units of gas used between the two dates by their reckoning - which might be perfectly possible but in this case has been arrived at by simple coincidence? It would certainly explain why they cannot see why there is a problem.

At this stage, as we speak, they are still disputing whether the reading should be in kWh or volume. I think I know more than they do now. 

Roly98

I've just heard back.. now agreeing it's the volume. They said they will take the 3031 reading. I think that's okay?

Raxiel

Thing is, that meter doesn't show any decimals on the volume reading, just the whole cubic meters. I think there is a more precise reading buried somewhere in the buttons but its not easy to find.

I suspect they were given 30319.67 and someone assumed it was just the decimal in the wrong place.

Raxiel

Roly98 said:

I've just heard back.. now agreeing it's the volume. They said they will take the 3031 reading. I think that's okay?

It should be. See what the resultant bill looks like. Sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about might be looking at it now.

EssexHebridean

Roly98 said:

I've just heard back.. now agreeing it's the volume. They said they will take the 3031 reading. I think that's okay?

Oh hurrah - progress!

Roly98

Thank you all for your help ... I am most grateful