Converting Gas to Kwh?

Gerry1

matt_drummer said:

Gerry1 said:

matt_drummer said:

FreeBear said:

Switch supplier, wait a month or two, and then get the error corrected. The old supplier probably won't notice.

Wouldn't that be fraud?

I think this is an internet forum that is open to the whole world?

Evidence of fraud wouldn't be difficult to find!

In any case, why would you be advocating defrauding an energy company out of money that is rightfully theirs?

Hard to see that it's fraud.  The OP can reasonably expect their supplier to get their sums right.

Similarly, the OP has the right to switch tariffs and/or supplier; consumers have long been encouraged to do so to encourage a competitive market.

Of course, flagging up a supplier's double incompetence may be considered a moral obligation, but failure to do so does not constitute fraud.

FreeBear said:

Switch supplier, wait a month or two, and then get the error corrected. The old supplier probably won't notice

Switching suppliers or tariff as part of a competitive market does not constitute fraud, I agree.

However, switching supplier, waiting a month or two and then getting the error corrected hoping that the old supplier won't notice the error is a deliberate act to avoid paying for the gas supplied.

What anybody calls it may vary and it may not be called fraud but it is deceitful and dishonest in my opinion.

And that is the part I took a dislike to, advising somebody to be dishonest regardless of its legality, I would hope that we were better than that.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not advising anyone to be be dishonest (not that you've ever accused me of that).

I agree that a 'wait & see' policy is a tad less than 100% honourable and squeaky clean, and the longer this knowingly continues the less honourable it then becomes.

However, it's hard to see how doing nothing can become fraud.  IANAL and all that but which law would the OP have broken?  Assuming that the OP has provided meter readings and has not prevented access by a meter reader, it's unlikely that they have even failed to meet their responsibilities under the Ts&Cs of their agreement.

IMHO the optimal solution would be for the OP to flag up the issue and for Sainsbury's to charge the correct rate from then onwards but not to back bill.

matt_drummer

Gerry1 said:

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not advising anyone to be be dishonest (not that you've ever accused me of that).

I agree that a 'wait & see' policy is a tad less than 100% honourable and squeaky clean, and the longer this knowingly continues the less honourable it then becomes.

However, it's hard to see how doing nothing can become fraud.  IANAL and all that but which law would the OP have broken?  Assuming that the OP has provided meter readings and has not prevented access by a meter reader, it's unlikely that they have even failed to meet their responsibilities under the Ts&Cs of their agreement.

IMHO the optimal solution would be for the OP to flag up the issue and for Sainsbury's to charge the correct rate from then onwards but not to back bill.

Hi Gerry.

I never said that doing nothing was fraud, in fact I was responding to the suggestion of @freebear to switch supplier, wait a month or two and then correct the error and hope the old supplier doesn't notice.

That is not doing nothing, that is taking deliberate action to avoid paying for something that has been supplied.

It was the taking action to avoid paying that I asked whether that might be considered fraud.

I did only ask the question, I never sad it was actually fraudulent but I do think it is dishonest.

I was most horrified that somebody would suggest taking such action to avoid payment.

QrizB

That is not doing nothing, that is taking deliberate action to avoid paying for something that has been supplied.

I can't see that it's any different to staying with Sainsbury's and waiting for them to notice.

matt_drummer said:

I was most horrified that somebody would suggest taking such action to avoid payment.

As we've mostly agreed that no laws are being broken, and it's likely that the supplier's T&C are also being followed, it comes down to ethics (or morals, if you prefer). These are personal. It's for the OP to decide, based on their own code of behaviour.

matt_drummer

QrizB said:

That is not doing nothing, that is taking deliberate action to avoid paying for something that has been supplied.

I can't see that it's any different to staying with Sainsbury's and waiting for them to notice.

matt_drummer said:

I was most horrified that somebody would suggest taking such action to avoid payment.

As we've mostly agreed that no laws are being broken, and it's likely that the supplier's T&C are also being followed, it comes down to ethics (or morals, if you prefer). These are personal. It's for the OP to decide, based on their own code of behaviour.

The difference is the suggestion was to do something in the hope that it will make it more difficult for Sainsbury's to notice their error and reduce the chances of them having the chance to correct their error. 

That was in essence the suggestion of FeeBear, to make it less likely that Sainsbury's would find out and increase the chances of the customer getting away with not paying for all the gas they had used.

I agree it is for the OP to decide and I am not going to the police about it!


My comments were not directed at the OP.

I didn't like the suggestion of moving supplier to increase the chances of not paying.

As always, it is my opinion and that's what people come to internet forums for, not my opinion but different views and answers to assist them in resolving their issues.

jbuchanangb

IMHO the optimal solution would be for the OP to flag up the issue and for Sainsbury's to charge the correct rate from then onwards but not to back bill.

In effect that was my suggestion earlier in the thread.
I think that the suggestions to initiate a supplier switch would cause immense problems. The OP would inform his intended new supplier of the reading in cubic meters from his meter, which the intended new supplier would refer to the current supplier through the industry middle man. The current supplier is billing in cubic feet. One of the rules of switching is to make sure that the closing reading with the outgoing supplier is the same as the opening reading with the new. In the OP's scenario all I can see is a great deal of confusion. Much better to straighten things out with Sainsbury's Energy now, before thinking of switching.

Qyburn

matt_drummer said:

The OP knows that their suppliers sums are wrong.

Not to tell them would be wrong, I don't know for sure how they would stand in law without researching it, but my legal training and knowledge tells me that they would be found to be on the wrong side of the argument.

Fraud could be described as avoiding payment that you know you are liable to make.

Fraud is a statutory offence nowadays. From what I can see the question hinges on whether he has a "legal duty" to inform the supplier. If he does then not doing so would appear to fall under Section 3 "Fraud by failing to disclose information". 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/3