Left Octopus and can't get my money back

Gerry1

Sailbad said:

Do you know if anyone has contested it with the Ombudsman?

Yes, and unfortunately it went against them.

Adverse Back-Billing decision

MWT

Sailbad said:

Do you know if anyone has contested it with the Ombudsman?

As Gerry mentioned it has been challenged, and on each occasion we've seen on here, the Ombudsman has either stuck to the same perspective or has actually expanded the scope , as it did in the case Gerry linked, so it makes it even more clear that anything paid via a DD at any time is considered to be an amount the supplier can use to cover previously unbilled consumption, whenever it occurs and however long ago...

... and similarly refunds of such amounts can be reversed, even if they occur after account closure.

Sailbad

This seems to me to be grossly unfair to customers on dd who "do the right thing" and keep their account in credit.
I would like to see where this escape clause for energy providers is actually published on some official site.

brig001

I have figured out some of what Octopus have done
The meter readings are in order, but the per unit charges don't match any letters that I have checked about price changes
On one bill, they have charged me night cost for day and night, and that night cost is lower than it should be, so the whole things a mess

Incompetence is at a new level with Octopus

Gerry1

brig001 said:

The meter readings are in order, but the per unit charges don't match any letters that I have checked about price changes

They never will, for any supplier.  The pence/kWh charges shown on the bills exclude the 5% VAT which is only added on right at the end.

Advisory letters and quotation prices for domestic users always include VAT.

brig001

Gerry1 said:

brig001 said:

The meter readings are in order, but the per unit charges don't match any letters that I have checked about price changes

They never will, for any supplier.  The pence/kWh charges shown on the bills exclude the 5% VAT which is only added on right at the end.

Advisory letters and quotation prices for domestic users always include VAT.

Ah, you're right, but it doesn't explain charging night rate for day usage though

It's really complicated because I have so many re-bills from when they randomly swapped day and night readings, then a final bill, the a final re-bill of all of my bills because apparently every bill they ever sent was wrong, even the original re-bills

brig001

Final bills 5 and 6 are still wrong and they have asked me to do a space test - what would that prove - my new supplier has re-configured the meter - the "right" way around!
Fortunately I have videos from previous space tests that they asked for and have conveniently lost
Keep backups because Octopus don't

Brian

ArbitraryRandom

Sailbad said:

This seems to me to be grossly unfair to customers on dd who "do the right thing" and keep their account in credit.
I would like to see where this escape clause for energy providers is actually published on some official site.

I think we might have a different understanding of the meaning of 'unfair'? 

In the vast majority of cases, if you owe money for goods or services, the company has 6 years to pursue the debt - and there's not a dispute that the energy was used, so it seems fair to me that the energy companies can use existing credit on the account as opposed to the rest of us being expected to cover the loss when it's written off. 

The logic behind the rules isn't to prevent suppliers from recouping their loss, but to prevent 'bill shock' putting people into debt... hence it being deemed appropriate to use existing credit on the account to offset the debt. 

brig001

It does seem an odd policy to only pursue debt from those who have lent you money 

Sailbad

ArbitraryRandom said:

Sailbad said:

This seems to me to be grossly unfair to customers on dd who "do the right thing" and keep their account in credit.
I would like to see where this escape clause for energy providers is actually published on some official site.

I think we might have a different understanding of the meaning of 'unfair'? 

In the vast majority of cases, if you owe money for goods or services, the company has 6 years to pursue the debt - and there's not a dispute that the energy was used, so it seems fair to me that the energy companies can use existing credit on the account as opposed to the rest of us being expected to cover the loss when it's written off. 

The logic behind the rules isn't to prevent suppliers from recouping their loss, but to prevent 'bill shock' putting people into debt... hence it being deemed appropriate to use existing credit on the account to offset the debt. 

In the OP's case there was no existing credit on the account when the shock bill came.
It had been refunded some time previously.