Back billing, deadlocked dispute, and recovery action.

Newcad

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

It's all set out in the thread above, but a quick recap..

It's about the company not billing at all for years - and then attempting to back-bill for those years after I had left them; but still not issuing any billing until 10 months after I had left them.

Then, after I had informed them I knew that they couldn't backbill like that, attempting to backbill for the full 12 months before I left them.

I informed then that in the circumstances they were not allowed to do that either.
Under the terms of the Standard Licence they can only backbill (in that situation) for 12 months prior to the date that valid billing was produced.

The Ombusdman has confirmed that, he has even instructed them how to correctly calculate a bill for the 2 months that they were allowed to bill for at that time.
Despite very clear directions from the Ombudsman Scottish Power have still not revised that billing.

Please read the previous posts in this thread before re-hashing any of the old comments/points there.
Some of the previous comments raised were made without regard to the specifics of the situation (commenting without reading what had already been written) and some were somewhat pessimistic - but my viewpoint was confirmed by the decision of the Ombudsman which completely supported my contetions.

Largs

Many thanks for sharing this, I knew about backbilling rules (I thought!) but this has been very informative and I am sure many more people will learn from it too.

QrizB

Newcad said:

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

I don't know why you think statute barring is irrelevant. It's the law.

Newcad

QrizB said:

Newcad said:

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

I don't know why you think statute barring is irrelevant. It's the law.

It is a law relating to debt.

There is no debt here. There is just attempted collection of incorrect (prohibited) charging.

As no debt exists in this case then there is nothing to BE statute barred.

brewerdave

QrizB said:

Newcad said:

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

I don't know why you think statute barring is irrelevant. It's the law.

It would only become a debt if 1. SP produced a correct bill (as agreed with the E.O) and 2.  @Newcad refused to pay that within the normal timescales after its production (28 days ??)

QrizB

Newcad said:

QrizB said:

Newcad said:

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

I don't know why you think statute barring is irrelevant. It's the law.

It is a law relating to debt.

There is no debt here. There is just attempted collection of incorrect (prohibited) charging.

That isn't correct. BG are alleging a debt. An ombudsman's decision does not eliminate the debt, nor does Ofgem's back billing rules.

Newcad said:

As no debt exists in this case then there is nothing to BE statute barred.

If BG persist in pursuing their alleged debt, they will take you to court. A judge will then decide whether the debt exists or not.

Once statute barred, the existence (or not) of the debt is moot.

saajan_12

Newcad said:

No refund, but they can't bill me as they tried to either.

(That being the case then it cannot become a debt; so Statute Barring is irrelevant)

Right, but it doesn't matter if they do treat it as a debt, if it gets passed the 6 years.  

Newcad said:

..

At the moment Scottish Power appear to have accepted that they were in the wrong, but for some reason are being unwilling to fully correct their errors and bring matters to a close in any proper manner.
Instead they seem to be choosing to leave things in limbo.

Based on the above, why does it actually matter whether they close things 'properly' or just don't respond. You could also leave things as is, if they respond then of course push the Ombudsman's decision etc. If they don't for 6 years, then it becomes moot regardless. 

Newcad

QrizB said:

That isn't correct. BG are alleging a debt. An ombudsman's decision does not eliminate the debt, nor does Ofgem's back billing rules.

You are somewhat out of date there. (As is a lot of the advice and articles that you will find online).

What was the voluntary 'Ofgem Back Billing Principle' (since 2007) was in 2018 written into the 'Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply'  as a requirement of those conditions.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/decision-modification-electricity-and-gas-supply-licences-introduce-rules-backbilling-improve-customer-outcomes

That means that it is now a legal requirement of the Standard Licence, and such is backed by law.
Any company not complying with the Standard Conditions is in breach of their licence.

The charge (in this particular case) is prohibited by the Standard Conditions. The Standard Conditions state that the charge is "prohibited" ie. it cannot exist, therefore it cannot be a debt.

This information is aready given in the previous posts on this thread. I had not come back here to re-hash things that had already been covered.
I had come here again to update the interested on how things were going in my case and how long such a case may take.

QrizB

Newcad said:

QrizB said:

That isn't correct. BG are alleging a debt. An ombudsman's decision does not eliminate the debt, nor does Ofgem's back billing rules.

You are somewhat out of date there. (As is a lot of the advice and articles that you will find online).

What was the voluntary 'Ofgem Back Billing Principle' (since 2007) was in 2018 written into the 'Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply'  as a requirement of those conditions.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/decision-modification-electricity-and-gas-supply-licences-introduce-rules-backbilling-improve-customer-outcomes

That means that it is now a legal requirement of the Standard Licence, and such is backed by law.

But not by a law that you can enforce.

Newcad said:

Any company not complying with the Standard Conditions is in breach of their licence.

And can be chastised by Ofgem, which does not help you.

saajan_12 said:

Newcad said:

..

At the moment Scottish Power appear to have accepted that they were in the wrong, but for some reason are being unwilling to fully correct their errors and bring matters to a close in any proper manner.
Instead they seem to be choosing to leave things in limbo.

Based on the above, why does it actually matter whether they close things 'properly' or just don't respond. You could also leave things as is, if they respond then of course push the Ombudsman's decision etc. If they don't for 6 years, then it becomes moot regardless. 

Exactly the point I was trying to make.