Back billing dispute - ombudsman process advice

ed_r

I am in a back billing dispute with Bulb which is being managed by the ombudsman. They have made an offer to review what credit they can give me due to back billing for a period longer ago than 12 months. They appear to have acknowledged that back billing >12 months has occurred but have not specified how much credit they will give. They have merely offered to calculate an amount.

I am asked to accept or decline their offer.

I am hesitant to accept it because they have not specified the amount they will credit (an offer to review something is not the same as an offer to credit a specific amount). I fear they could say they have reviewed it, and they can not credit me. That would be consistent with how they have behaved in the dispute. They dont respond to requests to explain.

I am hesitant to reject it because they appear to have accepted that they have back-billed beyond the period allowed. 

I have written to ask them to specify the amount, but they have not responded. I have calculated and sent them workings, but they have not responded.

The amount I am seeking is £1,300 (if my calculations are correct) with an additional offer of £120 compensation (which is neither here nor there!).

What would forumites do?

Reed_Richards

Personally I would say that they can review what credit they can give you.  After that you will review their response and decide whether or not you wish to accept their offer.

[Deleted User]

BackBilling is not a straight write off in the way that many people think. The supplier is allowed to reduce the write off by any monies you have paid to it during the write off period.

For example, if the write off of charges is a £1000 and you have paid £900 during the write off period, then you would end up £100 better off. BackBilling was designed to prevent bill shock and nothing more.

If you decline the Energy Ombudsman’s Decision then that is the end of your complaint. Neither the supplier nor the Ombudsman will discuss your complaint any further. The supplier is not bound by the Decision if you reject it.

Fair or unfair? You agreed to go to third-party arbitration. It doesn’t always work out as the complainant might wish. There is no appeal against an Energy Ombudsman Decision.

If you decline the Decision, you could still go to Court. That said, the supplier can use the rejected Decision as part of its defence.

Newcad

It's not clear from what has been said if the ombudsman has even made the decision yet?
Can you clarify that @ed_r ?

From what has been said don't think that it's the ombudsman decision that is being talked about here, but an offer made by the company to try and resolve the dispute before the ombudsman decision. And how can you accept such an offer without knowing what it actually is?
"We promise to have a look to see if we think we can credit something" is not exactly the firmest of offers. It's not one that I would accept whithout knowing just how much was being offered.

I have a similiar ongoing dispute about back-billing for too far, complicated by the facts that: 1- The company hadn't billed me at all since 2017, 2- It's now 2 years since I moved house and left that company.
In my case the company agreed from the start that the back billing condition applies, just not when it applies from.
I have had a decision from the ombudsman, he upheld my complaint that they were trying to back bill for too far, and directed them to recalculate, even giving them the corrrect dates to use.
I've just come on the forum now to write up the latest twist that the company have now re-billed and say they have complied with the ombudsman but they haven't changed their back billing at all, they have still back billed to the same incorrect date.
So as I type this I'm waiting for a call back from the ombudsman case officer to discuss what next, I don't think he has been provided with the new billing, just their letter saying they have now complied.
But more of that on my own thread, which I'm heading for now..

MWT

Newcad said:

I've just come on the forum now to write up the latest twist that the company have now re-billed and say they have complied with the ombudsman but they haven't changed their back billing at all, they have still back billed to the same incorrect date.

Not enough details in what you have told us to determine if there is a problem or not...

As Dolor already explained, you don't simply get a write-off for the period beyond the allowed 12 months, the payments and the credit balance you accrued during that period are allowed to be retained by the supplier and applied to your balance before the 12 month period.

Similarly if you had any refund of credit they are allowed to reverse that and similarly apply it to the balance...

So as an example, if you were paying a £50 DD each month and using £49 each month but they didn't bill you for 18 months, there would be nothing owed to you under the back-billing rules.

With that same example, if you had noticed the balance building up due to the lack of billing and asked for a refund after the first 6 months, they are allowed to reclaim that refund from you and use it to cover the costs of that first 6 months even though it covers use more than 12 months ago...

Newcad

MWT said:

Newcad said:

I've just come on the forum now to write up the latest twist that the company have now re-billed and say they have complied with the ombudsman but they haven't changed their back billing at all, they have still back billed to the same incorrect date.

Not enough details in what you have told us to determine if there is a problem or not...

As Dolor already explained, you don't simply get a write-off for the period beyond the allowed 12 months, the payments and the credit balance you accrued during that period are allowed to be retained by the supplier and applied to your balance before the 12 month period.

Similarly if you had any refund of credit they are allowed to reverse that and similarly apply it to the balance...

So as an example, if you were paying a £50 DD each month and using £49 each month but they didn't bill you for 18 months, there would be nothing owed to you under the back-billing rules.

With that same example, if you had noticed the balance building up due to the lack of billing and asked for a refund after the first 6 months, they are allowed to reclaim that refund from you and use it to cover the costs of that first 6 months even though it covers use more than 12 months ago...

The details, including the latest, are up on my own thread. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6431773/back-billing-deadlocked-dispute-and-recovery-action/p1
Both yourself and Dolor already have some posts there.

And believe me I'm very aware of how the back billing condition/prohibiton works. (Even more so than I was before).
In my case as I said they had not been billing at all since August 2017, so there were no payments, DD's or anything at all like that to consider.
Then to cap things they didn't even bother to produce a final bill until 10 months after I had left them.

So its a simple 12 months prior to Charge Recovery Action (that bill) being taken. But Scottish Power are dogmatic that it's 12 months before I left them.
The ombudsman decision agreed with me, upheld my complaint, and directed Scottish Power just what dates they had to apply the back billing prohibition to. Scottish Power haven't done that and are still trying to back bill to what they think and not what the law says.

Anyway, that's all on my thread, this thread is ed_r's so I'll not hijack it.

[Deleted User]

that and are still trying to back bill to what they think and not what the law says.

Be careful over your use of words if you intend to go to Court. There is no law underpinning BackBilling. 

BackBilling used to be a voluntary code of practice. After an industry consultation, Ofgem agreed to make BackBilling a Supply Licence Condition:

Newcad

Like I say, my case should be discussed on my thread not here.

And TBH you are not telling me anything that I don't already know.
(And I do have a copy of the current,1st April 2023, Standard Consolidated Licence Condotions on this laptop).
Yes, it used to be a voluntary Ofgem Principle before being incorporated into the Standard Conditions.
Yes, the Standard Conditions of licences are not legislation.
The Licences themselves are not legislation, but they are required by legislation.
The Electricity Act 1989, (As Amended), section 4, prohibits the generation, transmission, distribution, or supply of electricity without a Licence.

In my particular case that the condition applies is not disputed by either party, we agree that it applies, our disagreement is the period that it applies to, and the ombudsman agrees with my reading of the condition.

Let's let ed_r have his thread back., if he's not already been discouraged.
Sorry, ed_r.

ed_r

Reed_Richards said:

Personally I would say that they can review what credit they can give you.  After that you will review their response and decide whether or not you wish to accept their offer.

Thank you for your advice which I took.

I have heard back today with an offer which is acceptable - and the matter has been resolved. 

 

ed_r

Newcad said:

It's not clear from what has been said if the ombudsman has even made the decision yet?
Can you clarify that @ed_r ?

From what has been said don't think that it's the ombudsman decision that is being talked about here, but an offer made by the company to try and resolve the dispute before the ombudsman decision. And how can you accept such an offer without knowing what it actually is?
"We promise to have a look to see if we think we can credit something" is not exactly the firmest of offers. It's not one that I would accept whithout knowing just how much was being offered.

I have a similiar ongoing dispute about back-billing for too far, complicated by the facts that: 1- The company hadn't billed me at all since 2017, 2- It's now 2 years since I moved house and left that company.
In my case the company agreed from the start that the back billing condition applies, just not when it applies from.
I have had a decision from the ombudsman, he upheld my complaint that they were trying to back bill for too far, and directed them to recalculate, even giving them the corrrect dates to use.
I've just come on the forum now to write up the latest twist that the company have now re-billed and say they have complied with the ombudsman but they haven't changed their back billing at all, they have still back billed to the same incorrect date.
So as I type this I'm waiting for a call back from the ombudsman case officer to discuss what next, I don't think he has been provided with the new billing, just their letter saying they have now complied.
But more of that on my own thread, which I'm heading for now..

Thanks for your question Newcad and no apologies necessary. The Ombudsman was extremely helpful and supportive. They didnt reach the stage at which judgement was required - but they reassured me that I had understood correctly the way in which backbilling rules worked; and they provided me with comfort that I was making sensible judgements whil emaking efforts to be impartial. I would say they got the balance right. 

My main worry was that I had become too expecting of bad behaviour - and was about to reject what was actually an attempt to remedy the problem because the people I was dealing with were unresponsive and were not clear communicators.

I needed advice and this forum gave it.

Newcad

Good to hear that you have had an acceptable resolution ed_r.

(In my case I'm still waiting, I've heard nothing at all from Scottish Power since the ombudsman gave them a rocket last week for not complying with his directions).