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

HillStreetBlues

When TE went down they owed me £80 from an Ombudsman's ruling and I owed them £74.13 for final bill, I'm not going to hold my breath for the £5.87

FastShow

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81927480#Comment_81927480

Not sure I follow - I was on a fixed tariff. My last Tomato bill in October was billed up to the reading of 49332 (estimated). I paid for usage up to that amount. When I gave BG my opening reading, it was 48805. I paid BG for usage from 48805 up to the final reading when I left a few weeks later. I essentially paid for usage from 48805 to 49332 twice, I'm just trying to work out how I get this money back.

t0rt0ise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928121#Comment_81928121

The only thing I can see you can do is tell BG that you gave them the wrong start reading. It should have been 49332.

debitcardmayhem

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928132#Comment_81928132

Hmm , that would be fraud, plus BG will have access to the smart DCC readings. The only good thing is that @FastShow has "only" paid too much at TE rates, hopefully the administrators will get round to putting it right , but I wouldn't hope for too much.

FastShow

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928132#Comment_81928132

Apart from being dishonest, I still have the problem that the opening reading with the supplier I moved to AFTER British Gas had an opening reading lower than the final reading I paid Tomato for. It's all a bit of a mess but it's enough money that I'm prepared to be annoying about it, I just need to find the right people to annoy!

Qyburn

The EO won't look into a complaint against Tomato since they ceased trading.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928313#Comment_81928313

Joking a mirror.

For paying a estimated bill that was higher than your actual usage, given it was known that they were on their way to no longer trading..

t0rt0ise

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928168#Comment_81928168

It's not fraud. It's using the correct last reading of the previous supplier who is not contactable.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928520#Comment_81928520

It is fraud. It is using a known incorrect meter reading, one that cannot be backed up with photographic evidence, and one that will be contradicted by any subsequent readings that have been taken.

The legal test for fraud is in 5 parts

1. a statement or representation that was false
2. that was known to be false or was reckless as to whether it was false
3. that was intended to be relied on by the other party
4. that the other party did, in fact, rely upon
5. that the other party suffered a loss as a result

BG and the newer supplier are entitled to bill for the units that are currently in dispute. The statement, if made and relied upon, would cause them to lose that revenue. You may argue that @FastShow (who is not even considering this path, btw) could simply invent more meter readings that make sure these two suppliers don't lose out, but sooner or later the scheme would collapse.

Alnat1

You were daft enough to pay an estimated bill that was way higher than it should have been. Why didn't you check the meter and query it at the time?

Everybody is going to claim it's somebody else's fault and I think it's unlikely that you will see the money again and will have to chalk it up as a not to be repeated learning experience.