Back billing, deadlocked dispute, and recovery action.

Newcad

My question is:
I know that recovery action must be suspended while a dispute is ongoing, but -

Are the company allowed to re-initiate recovery action once they declare that a dispute is deadlocked, even when they know it has been referred to the Ombudsman?

I can't find a definitive answer, so any links to 'official' guidance would be welcome.

Background:

I have a dispute with an energy provider about their final billing for a property that I moved out of almost 2 years ago.
Without going into details the dispute has now reached the deadlock letter stage.
I have their deadlock letter and have lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman:Energy.
However the company have now restarted recovery action and I have been informed by text message that they are now appointing a debt recovery agency to collect.
(This will be the 3rd one, two have already swiftly withdrawn when informed of the facts behind the dispute).

Newcad

Just an update to this:

I informed the Debt Collection agency that the debt was disputed as unlawful and that they should cease all recovery activity.

They replied that they had contacted the provider and that the provider told them that there was no dispute.
(Whether or not that is true I have no idea, but someone is telling untruths and the Ombudsman has been informed of it).

So I provided proof of the dispute deadlock letter, and of the complaint raised with the Ombudsman.

The agency quickly replied that they had put recovery activity 'on hold' for 30 days.

brewerdave

Newcad said:

Just an update to this:

I informed the Debt Collection agency that the debt was disputed as unlawful and that they should cease all recovery activity.

They replied that they had contacted the provider and that the provider told them that there was no dispute.
(Whether or not that is true I have no idea, but someone is telling untruths and the Ombudsman has been informed of it).

So I provided proof of the dispute deadlock letter, and of the complaint raised with the Ombudsman.

The agency quickly replied that they had put recovery activity 'on hold' for 30 days.

As far as the supplier is concerned there is no dispute - you have been given a deadlock letter because they feel the situation is resolved.. As far as I'm aware, until the Ombudsman asks the supplier for information re your complaint, the debt still exists. Not sure whether an investigation then puts the debt on hold.
There is apparently a big backlog with the O.E so the supplier will probably not know what you have done with the deadlock letter yet.

Newcad

Thanks for your comments,

Whilst I understand that the supplier may want to regard a deadlock letter as 'resolution' that is only their (biased) view.
A deadlock letter is obviously not a resolution at all; in fact it is a companys acknowledgement that there has been a failure to reach any resolution and they are sticking to their position.

Moving on:
The ombudsman has now 'accepted' the case and my evidence; a case handler has been assigned and we have spoken on the phone.
We are now awaiting the suppliers response to the ombudsman.

As of yet there have been no further attempts at recovery actions.

WBCPB

Newcad said:

Thanks for your comments,

Whilst I understand that the supplier may want to regard a deadlock letter as 'resolution' that is only their (biased) view.
A deadlock letter is obviously not a resolution at all; in fact it is a companys acknowledgement that there has been a failure to reach any resolution and they are sticking to their position.

Moving on:
The ombudsman has now 'accepted' the case and my evidence; a case handler has been assigned and we have spoken on the phone.
We are now awaiting the suppliers response to the ombudsman.

As of yet there have been no further attempts at recovery actions.

Good luck & keep on with any updates.

Mstty

I would expect debt recovery action to continue until the ombudsman rules.

You have done the right thing contacting the debt recovery company but that does not mean they won't come knocking and the whole mess sorted out once the ombudsman rules.

Have you considered what your action will be should the ombudsman not rule in your favour?

Newcad

Mstty said:

Have you considered what your action will be should the ombudsman not rule in your favour?

I'm sure of my legal ground so if for some strange reason the Ombudsman doesn't rule in my favour then it's off to court.
The solicitors who had been acting for the supplier quickly withdrew once they saw my legal argument, despite that the supplier kept on chasing.

To elaborate on the dispute (No names just in case this does end up in court).:

The supplier freely acknowledges that my argument regarding back-billing is correct in law, our dispute is about how they want to apply that law. ie. from what date it should apply.
The regulation itself is quite clear about that - no more than 12 months before valid billing (refered to in the legislation as “charge recovery action”) is produced.
In my case they had not billed for a number of years, long story, and they didn't produce any billing until 10 months after I had left them.
Despite the legislation being clear that they can only back-bill for 12 months before the billing is produced they are attempting to bill for the last 12 months I was with them, ie. 22 months before the billing was produced.
My feeling/suspicion is that the supply company are relying on their own 'internal guidance', and that whilst that guidance is generally legally correct for existing customers is not legally corrrect for ex-customers who left them months before they finally managed to produce a bill.

You will note that there were 2 months that they could have legally billed for, so I'm also arguing that because that was not corrected after I had first pointed out their error they are now also out of time to correctly bill for those. (That's slightly more debatable but still what the legislation says, any such back-billing must be correct)

Newcad

Just an update, to give others an idea of how the timelines go.

The company have now responded to the ombudsman.

There is no actual response, just a dump of 'evidence'.

Talking to the guy at the ombudsnam that is what that particular company tends to do, no response just a dump.

I've added an overall comment on it, and a short comment on each piece of evidence (72 pieces in all, most of it irrelevant in my view).

The company now has 4 days to comment on my comments, as it's a bank holiday weekend it will be the middle of next week when the guy at the Ombudsman starts to weigh it all up.

PS. I have noted, and commented to the Ombudsman, that although they have provided 'evidence' from the last 2 debt chasers that they had instructed (actually just a blank template letter from one, and an email from the second which I had already provided in my own evidence)  there is nothing at all from the first solicitors that they instructed who quickly withdrew once they saw my legal argument.

[Deleted User]

Newcad said:

Just an update, to give others an idea of how the timelines go.

The company have now responded to the ombudsman.

There is no actual response, just a dump of 'evidence'.

Talking to the guy at the ombudsnam that is what that particular company tends to do, no response just a dump.

I've added an overall comment on it, and a short comment on each piece of evidence (72 pieces in all, most of it irrelevant in my view).

The company now has 4 days to comment on my comments, as it's a bank holiday weekend it will be the middle of next week when the guy at the Ombudsman starts to weigh it all up.

PS. I have noted, and commented to the Ombudsman, that although they have provided 'evidence' from the last 2 debt chasers that they had instructed (actually just a blank template letter from one, and an email from the second which I had already provided in my own evidence)  there is nothing at all from the first solicitors that they instructed who quickly withdrew once they saw my legal argument.

The EOS process is based solely on a review of the evidence provided by you and the supplier. The supplier doesn’t comment on your comments. It may comment on the EOS Interim Decision.

Newcad

Thanks for your comment.

However after I have made my comments on the company evidence, and submitted my comments as completed, the ombudsman portal did say that the company have a chance to review my comments.

The process may be different for different ombudsman services.
(Some years ago I had cause to contact Offcom, that was a different process).

The portal i am on now is currently showing:

MWT

Newcad said:

Despite the legislation being clear that they can only back-bill for 12 months before the billing is produced they are attempting to bill for the last 12 months I was with them, ie. 22 months before the billing was produced.

My feeling/suspicion is that the supply company are relying on their own 'internal guidance', and that whilst that guidance is generally legally correct for existing customers is not legally corrrect for ex-customers who left them months before they finally managed to produce a bill.

Do keep us updated regarding the final outcome...

It has been quite a while since this set of circumstances last came up, but I do seem to recall the Ombudsman supporting the view that the 12 months should be back-dated from the end of contract date.

There are separate penalties for late delivery of the final bill (£30 for missing the 6 week deadline and £30 for not automatically paying the first £30, so £60 in total).