Help! Ovo keep sending bills but we are with a different provider

Anya15

In April this year I raised my first complaint regarding the letters that Ovo was wrongly sending to my address. Apparently, a case was raised to team billing team to get the letters stopped.

However, in May I received a threatening letter notifying me that my details would be passed to a debt collection agency in 7 days. The outstanding balance was almost £700! I phoned Ovo twice but all I got was a ridiculous advice to ignore the letters, and to keep sending them back to Ovo - and that ‘unfortunately the letters will keep arriving’ as Ovo (for some unclear reason) can’t get this stopped. Both Ovo employees I spoke to confirmed that Ovo was NOT my supplier but they couldn’t do anything about the letters – which is beyond unprofessional and incompetent! When I asked what I should do if a debt collector knocked on my door soon, there was no answer…

The letters have been arriving since Feb 2023 and are addressed to: The Occupier (no name and surname), then my address. They obviously refer to an account number that is not ours as we are with a different provider. We are renting this flat since 2013 and have never been with Ovo.

The Find my Supplier website confirms that the energy supplier for our address (26/1)  is NOT Ovo. Ovo seems to be the energy provider for the following flats in our building: 26/1 2C; 26/1 TOPL; and 26/1 T/R – it's a total mess! The meter point reference numbers for 26/1 (our flat) and 26/1 T/R (top right in our building?) are very similar so it’s likely that Ovo billing department made a typo…

Now to find a resolution, Ovo ask to confirm our meter serial number and request a photo our meter and tenancy agreement for proof of address from us to confirm the MPRN number on the national database - this is apparently to "update the unknown occupier account with the correct address in your building". I don't know if I can trust them with this information as they seem completely unprofessional. I can understand that they want our meter serial number (although they can find it on the Find my Supplier website..) but I'm not happy about having to provide my tenancy agreement. What should I do? I have received another two bills from them today.

Reed_Richards

An issue that crops up quite frequently on this forum is confusion about which meter serves which flat. Before you do anything else (and if you have not already done so) turn your electricity supply off at the meter and verify that that does cut the power to your flat.  

[Deleted User]

Sadly, mis-registered meters in new builds and flats is a very common problem. You need to follow Ovo’s advice and confirm that the meter serial number on your latest statement matches the serial number on the actual meter. Carry out a burn test to check that you have the correct meter.

If your meter has been incorrectly registered then you need to proceed carefully. Meters are linked to a MPRN and the MPRN is linked to a postal address. You will need to get the MPRN which is linked to your actual meter serial number transferred to your postal address. DO NOT break the MPRN/meter serial number link. If you do, a neighbour will end up with a MPRN and no meter, and another will end up with a meter and no MPRN.

Gerry1

IANAL so you'll be have to decide whether this is worthwhile advice, but having done the Meter Sanity Test (and a similar check for gas) I'd stop phoning and send a letter via snail mail to the CEO whose details will be available at the ceoemail website which is a dot com.

I'd provide my address exactly as shown on my council tax bill and the meter serial numbers and provide the name(s) of my supplier(s), but I wouldn't send a copy of the tenancy agreement.

I'd state that their threats of involving debt collectors causes me distress and anxiety and that IMHO this breaches the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I used this successfully with TV Licensing over a decade ago: I don't have a TV but they automatically assumed I was a criminal and sent increasingly mendacious threatening letters every fortnight.

When they started sending them by registered mail (necessitating a Saturday trip to the head post office) I decided enough was enough.  I became a WOIRA (withdrawal of their implied right of access) which meant that any threats to send the boys round were invalid hence covered by MCA1988.

They never pestered me again !

BobT36

Gerry1 said:

When they started sending them by registered mail (necessitating a Saturday trip to the head post office) I decided enough was enough.  I became a WOIRA (withdrawal of their implied right of access) which meant that any threats to send the boys round were invalid hence covered by MCA1988.

They never pestered me again !

Have to be careful with that approach, they apparently classify a withdrawal of implied right of access as enough justification to get a warrant for entry. I agree though it's pure BS. Same with this situation where a company can just bombard you without any care. 

Gerry1

BobT36 said:

Gerry1 said:

When they started sending them by registered mail (necessitating a Saturday trip to the head post office) I decided enough was enough.  I became a WOIRA (withdrawal of their implied right of access) which meant that any threats to send the boys round were invalid hence covered by MCA1988.

They never pestered me again !

Have to be careful with that approach, they apparently classify a withdrawal of implied right of access as enough justification to get a warrant for entry. I agree though it's pure BS. Same with this situation where a company can just bombard you without any care.

Apologies for going slightly off topic, but no way would being a WOIRA justify a search warrant.

In any case, mere possession of a TV does not require a licence, what counts is what you use it for.  If you never watch or record live TV (on any channel, on any device) and never use the BBC iPlayer then that's fine.

(It's different in the RoI where even an old TV stored in the loft does require a licence.)

As Ovo agree that they are not the OP's supplier, threatening them with MCA1988 might just make them back off even if it has no legal validity.  Must be worth a try !

BobT36

Gerry1 said:

BobT36 said:

Gerry1 said:

When they started sending them by registered mail (necessitating a Saturday trip to the head post office) I decided enough was enough.  I became a WOIRA (withdrawal of their implied right of access) which meant that any threats to send the boys round were invalid hence covered by MCA1988.

They never pestered me again !

Have to be careful with that approach, they apparently classify a withdrawal of implied right of access as enough justification to get a warrant for entry. I agree though it's pure BS. Same with this situation where a company can just bombard you without any care.

Apologies for going slightly off topic, but no way would being a WOIRA justify a search warrant.

In any case, mere possession of a TV does not require a licence, what counts is what you use it for.  If you never watch or record live TV (on any channel, on any device) and never use the BBC iPlayer then that's fine.

(It's different in the RoI where even an old TV stored in the loft does require a licence.)

As Ovo agree that they are not the OP's supplier, threatening them with MCA1988 might just make them back off even if it has no legal validity.  Must be worth a try !

I fully agree! However a WOIRA will just paint a bigger target on the back. They've literally said they prioritise their focus on addresses that have removed right of access.. (Please look this up). 

To get a warrant, they have to 1. Prove TV is being watched, 2. Prove that they cannot conduct their enquiry without it. The WOIRA immediately satisfies that second point, so they only have to make something up for the first (and they're not beyond that! They've even gone as far as to superimpose an image onto someone's unplugged telly in a recorded video, to take them to court). It's corrupt as hell, but please DO check the updated advice before just blindly removing right of access... 

I'm unsure how energy companies (and their lapdogs) would react with removed right of access, but I think that should be an absolute last resort to buy some time to deal with the situation by other means. 

SwanJon

Anya15 said:

The Find my Supplier website confirms that the energy supplier for our address (26/1)  is NOT Ovo. Ovo seems to be the energy provider for the following flats in our building: 26/1 2C; 26/1 TOPL; and 26/1 T/R – it's a total mess! The meter point reference numbers for 26/1 (our flat) and 26/1 T/R (top right in our building?) are very similar so it’s likely that Ovo billing department made a typo…

This sounds like a Scottish tenement - I know that the flat numbers on the system(s) can be quite different to what Royal Mail has. I've seen something similar where the central database had multiple flats in the same stair all as (for example) 26/1 (Door 26, flat 1). It all fell apart when someone moved out and the postie put the mail in the door for flat 1.

I've seen flats with a different address on three different systems  - 26/8 (flat 8), 26 1F4 (fourth flat on first floor), 26 1LL (First floor, turn left, then the left again).

This is why it is important to check the meter serial number matches the bill (and if the meter is not in the flat, that it is the right meter) - it might not even be your bill.

Gerry1

BobT36 said:

Gerry1 said:

BobT36 said:

Gerry1 said:

When they started sending them by registered mail (necessitating a Saturday trip to the head post office) I decided enough was enough.  I became a WOIRA (withdrawal of their implied right of access) which meant that any threats to send the boys round were invalid hence covered by MCA1988.

They never pestered me again !

Have to be careful with that approach, they apparently classify a withdrawal of implied right of access as enough justification to get a warrant for entry. I agree though it's pure BS. Same with this situation where a company can just bombard you without any care.

Apologies for going slightly off topic, but no way would being a WOIRA justify a search warrant.

In any case, mere possession of a TV does not require a licence, what counts is what you use it for.  If you never watch or record live TV (on any channel, on any device) and never use the BBC iPlayer then that's fine.

(It's different in the RoI where even an old TV stored in the loft does require a licence.)

As Ovo agree that they are not the OP's supplier, threatening them with MCA1988 might just make them back off even if it has no legal validity.  Must be worth a try !

I fully agree! However a WOIRA will just paint a bigger target on the back. They've literally said they prioritise their focus on addresses that have removed right of access.. (Please look this up). 

To get a warrant, they have to 1. Prove TV is being watched, 2. Prove that they cannot conduct their enquiry without it. The WOIRA immediately satisfies that second point, so they only have to make something up for the first (and they're not beyond that! They've even gone as far as to superimpose an image onto someone's unplugged telly in a recorded video, to take them to court). It's corrupt as hell, but please DO check the updated advice before just blindly removing right of access... 

I'm unsure how energy companies (and their lapdogs) would react with removed right of access, but I think that should be an absolute last resort to buy some time to deal with the situation by other means. 

I'd never attempt to be a WOIRA if I had a dispute with an energy company because they do have a legal right of access (e.g. to read and check the meters).

However, TV Licensing were such a pain that defensive action became imperative.  Always extremely hostile right from the start, their first communication was a libellous envelope with WARNING: YOU COULD BE FINED £1000 in huge blood-red letters.  They had carefully placed it on a sloping window sill in the porch instead of popping it through the letter box, obviously intending to cause public humiliation. 

But WOIRA/MCA1988 stopped TVL dead in their tracks so it definitely works for me.