Tomato Energy (Electric Only Supplier) - Too Good To Be True ?

HillStreetBlues

masonic said:

HillStreetBlues said:

masonic said:

An administrator is not at liberty to make a decision where it cannot be established whether or not the money is actually owed. That's the problem. It needs a higher authority to make the determination. Since the licence holder is no more (and I doubt the directors will be in a cooperative mood), the EO won't hear complaints about a no longer regulated company, and the courts won't hear claims relating to companies with the protections afforded by administration, getting proof the money is actually owed will be challenging. The administrator has a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, and perform their functions as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable. That would mean not accepting claims that are in doubt, or spending a disproportionate amount of time assessing claims for trivial sums in the context of the millions that would likely be owed to other creditors.

And if a person disagreed with the debt the administrator claimed, would then the administrator take that person to court to for that £40?

No, they would quickly sell the debt to a collection service for however many pence in the pound, and those debt collectors would deal with it in the usual way.

Might have to find out how it plays out

EDIT What I mean how it plays out is first I will try and get TE to either write off final bill or pay the £80, if that fails due to TE no longer trading then I will requesting the compensation is deducted from final bill as was due while they were still trading. If they refuse then I will not paid the bill and will fight it in court  if it ever gets that far, hopefully it doesn't.

masonic

HillStreetBlues said:

masonic said:

HillStreetBlues said:

masonic said:

An administrator is not at liberty to make a decision where it cannot be established whether or not the money is actually owed. That's the problem. It needs a higher authority to make the determination. Since the licence holder is no more (and I doubt the directors will be in a cooperative mood), the EO won't hear complaints about a no longer regulated company, and the courts won't hear claims relating to companies with the protections afforded by administration, getting proof the money is actually owed will be challenging. The administrator has a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, and perform their functions as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable. That would mean not accepting claims that are in doubt, or spending a disproportionate amount of time assessing claims for trivial sums in the context of the millions that would likely be owed to other creditors.

And if a person disagreed with the debt the administrator claimed, would then the administrator take that person to court to for that £40?

No, they would quickly sell the debt to a collection service for however many pence in the pound, and those debt collectors would deal with it in the usual way.

Might have to find out how it plays out

A safer approach would be to get a resolution like this one from them https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81484190/#Comment_81484190

bagand96

A few reports on other forums of people who've had Lifestyle ToU Tariffs ending this week and have been told that their tariff will be temporarily extended as Tomato's "latest rates are still being collated, and will be released to customers by the end of August."

I guess they're not obligated to offer anything other than an SVR but it seems a bit strange, given that the Lifestyle tariffs seemed to be where they gained most customers.  At least they are keeping people on current rates for the time being.

Newbie_John

bagand96 said:

A few reports on other forums of people who've had Lifestyle ToU Tariffs ending this week and have been told that their tariff will be temporarily extended as Tomato's "latest rates are still being collated, and will be released to customers by the end of August."

I guess they're not obligated to offer anything other than an SVR but it seems a bit strange, given that the Lifestyle tariffs seemed to be where they gained most customers.  At least they are keeping people on current rates for the time being.

I've changed a tariff a month ago and was told it will last till October 2026.. 

Anyway, let's see what happens next week first 😉

masonic

HillStreetBlues said:

masonic said:

I know you would agree to it, and are disappointed that it hasn't been offered. My suggestion is to contact TE and make the proposal to them. The previous poster who got the £2000 written off was getting nowhere until making the same proposal. The rest of the exchange appears from my side to be you making excuses why that wouldn't work in your case. But what harm is there to try? Financially, this will be the best outcome for them, as they won't have any additional costs from the EO, which would probably exceed the amount written off.

I had never said I wouldn't try and get it written off, they might accept that, they might not. TE might not even last long enough to while they are deciding.
My original post was an enquiry if TE goes under before it's all sorted out and what would happen, rather than me stating I'm not trying to sort it out with them.

I don't disagree that time is of the essence, which is in part why I was pressing the issue. It's not only the best outcome for financial reasons, but is also the fastest resolution. Giving them 10 days to consider your offer before escalating to the EO puts you at very little additional risk. You should note that:

The notice to rectify will come with a couple of months before Ofgem initiated the process for revoking TE's licence, a process which itself takes at least 30 days.

So the failure to comply does not in and of itself create an imminent threat, but of course TE could appoint administrators whenever it chooses.

HillStreetBlues

masonic said:

HillStreetBlues said:

masonic said:

I know you would agree to it, and are disappointed that it hasn't been offered. My suggestion is to contact TE and make the proposal to them. The previous poster who got the £2000 written off was getting nowhere until making the same proposal. The rest of the exchange appears from my side to be you making excuses why that wouldn't work in your case. But what harm is there to try? Financially, this will be the best outcome for them, as they won't have any additional costs from the EO, which would probably exceed the amount written off.

I had never said I wouldn't try and get it written off, they might accept that, they might not. TE might not even last long enough to while they are deciding.
My original post was an enquiry if TE goes under before it's all sorted out and what would happen, rather than me stating I'm not trying to sort it out with them.

I don't disagree that time is of the essence, which is in part why I was pressing the issue. It's not only the best outcome for financial reasons, but is also the fastest resolution. Giving them 10 days to consider your offer before escalating to the EO puts you at very little additional risk. You should note that:

The notice to rectify will come with a couple of months before Ofgem initiated the process for revoking TE's licence, a process which itself takes at least 30 days.

So the failure to comply does not in and of itself create an imminent threat, but of course TE could appoint administrators whenever it chooses.

I think we are in agreement, try and sort it while TE are solvent. I think the misunderstand was that I don't think TE will write the bill off that quickly, but my mistake was not stating that is what I'm trying to do, I contacted TE yesterday to get the ball rolling. I should have been clearer, and apologise for that.

I'm going to delete my posts, to unclogg the board.

Mike360

I've never had a problem with the TE billing, it's been correct pretty much from the word go since I took out a fixed tariff in the summer of last year. Unlike my gas supplier.

HillStreetBlues

TE issue from 2023 now resolved https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/investigation-tomato-energy-limited-formerly-logicor-energy-limited-and-its-compliance-its-obligations-under-slcs-4a-and-5-electricity-licence

On 16 November 2023, Ofgem opened an investigation into whether Tomato Energy was in compliance with Standard Licence Conditions ("SLC") SLC 4A and 5 of the Electricity Supply Licence.

These SLC’s relate to Operational Capability (SLC 4A) and the Provision of Information to Authority and Data Retention (SLC 5).

The below sets out the findings of Ofgem’s investigation, actions taken by Tomato Energy to resolve the issues and our reasons for closing the investigation by way of Alternative Action on payments being made to Ofgem’s Voluntary Redress Fund (administered by the Energy Saving Trust) in accordance with our Enforcement Guidelines rather than impose a financial penalty.

Background

Tomato Energy Limited is a UK based domestic and non-domestic energy supplier based in Hampshire.

Ofgem’s investigation into Tomato Energy focused on the following:

• processes and procedures in place to comply with regulatory requests for information
• process and procedures in place to effectively ensure operational capability
• ability to respond to information requests to the required standard as set out in the Standard Licensing Conditions

Investigation outcome

The investigation concluded that Tomato Energy acted in contravention of SLCs 4A and 5 in respect to Tomato Energy’s:

• reliance on a third party, acting under a White Label Agreement, to provide consumers with appropriate levels of protection from harm
• incorrect migration of consumers on fixed term tariffs to variable rate tariffs before the end date of their fixed term agreement
• failure to interpret the SLC’s (incorrectly charging consumers at Standard Credit (“SC”) rates instead of Direct Debit (“DD”) rates)
• having insufficient processes and procedures in place to comply with regulatory requests for information
• having insufficient process and procedures in place to effectively ensure operational capability
• an inability to supply information in a timely manner when requested by Ofgem, and the submission of inaccurate, incomplete and conflicting information

Ofgem takes the fair treatment of customers very seriously. During this investigation, it became apparent that Tomato Energy had significant gaps in their customer service procedures which exposed customers to an increased risk of harm.

Tomato Energy proactively and constructively engaged with Ofgem and has identified and/or rectified process gaps during the investigation. As a result:

• Tomato Energy has accepted the findings of the investigation
• Tomato Energy has submitted a payment of £1,500,000 to Ofgem’s Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Fund
• Tomato Energy has agreed to make Consumers Redress payments to affected consumers within thirty days amounting to £50 per consumer for those affected by the incorrect migration from a fixed term tariff to a variable rate tariff and £10 per consumer for those notionally effected by the misapplication of Standard Credit rates instead of Direct Debit rates

Closure of this investigation has no impact on, and should not be associated with, the Provisional Order served to Tomato Energy on 10 April 2025.

Bendo

A cool 1.5 mill, that payment won't help with the April provisional order.

They are also being investigated now for breach of supply licence for not being able to handle SMETS1 meters.

MWT

Bendo said:

A cool 1.5 mill, that payment won't help with the April provisional order.

They are also being investigated now for breach of supply licence for not being able to handle SMETS1 meters.

You'd have to guess that they at least feel they have a chance of beating the provisional order or they would not have agreed to pay the £1.5m ...