Anomalously high gas bill - from British Gas

CazeryBird

They say I can't complain about anything anymore as the Ombudsman complaint is resolved. I said this is different: the Ombudsman complaint was about the overall bill and discrepancies in usage, but I am querying the one jump (which they themselves recently referred to as an 'incorrect' jump). This is something the Ombudsman said they couldn't investigate as it lies outside their remit: they said they can only look at m3 readings.

I think they are trying to get me to drop things because there is something in the SAR that they don't want me to see. It's very odd that they lack the resourcing to comply with a relatively small data request.

I'm going to plod on. At the very least they have now wasted resourcing that totals more than the amount I am disputing, so there's that (which seems a ridiculous business model, but hey ho, not my company to run to the ground).

brianposter

It would be helpful for us to see a clear copy of exactly what is said rather than relying on a second hand account, particularly as some of the claims seem to be a bit irrational.

However, taking things at face value, it would seem that there are several avenues to follow:

a) a complaint to the Ombudsman asking them to explain how perfectly good evidence can be outside their remit. Are they really unable to do simple arithmetic ?

b) a complaint to BG insisting that the Ombudsman has not resolved the case because it is apparently "not within their remit".

c) Estimate a correct amount for the disputed bill, pay the bill and use MCOL to reclaim the disputed amount.

It would appear that the SAR should show m3 figures equivalent to your usage figures which would presumably have to be accepted by the Ombudsman.

You might also consider a newspaper. That the figures provided by a smart meter are apparently outside the remit of the Energy Ombudsman would surely interest certain journalists.

CazeryBird

I'll dig out the ombudsman file and find relevant quotes. The bit about it beng out of scope was said during a phone call with them, so I don't have written evidence of that. Basically it was that if the m³ readings match then they have to accept the bill as accurate, and the smart meter readings are out of scope for them to investigate. There final report says that the m³ reading match but there are clearly some discrepencies in readings as those recorded suggest very high usage. They cant do anything other than recommend a meter test apparently...
There are so many contradictory emails from BG but I'll find some quotes from there too.

I'll look into a and b. I'm planning to do c already. I've paid off half so far.

I'm talking to someone from the media at the moment who is interested in the story. I did talk to a Guardian journalist a couple of months ago who was interested but she presumably got a better lead as she didn't reply to my last email or do any of what she said she would.

CazeryBird

So this is the bit from the Ombudsman decision letter:

"I am aware you say the company has not billed you for the correct usage. However, as per our discussion, I can confirm that the reading from 15 February 2025 matches the photo provided by you for the same date and therefore, your account has been billed based on accurate data from the meter. There have been smart readings used through the billing period too.

It is possible that the meter is not recording correctly however, I cannot say this with certainty. As we discussed, your average usage over the past twelve months was 175kWh per day on average. We would expect this to be no more than 46kWh on average per day."

He said verbally about the smart meter issues being out of their remit. He said they are only allowed to judge based on the m3 readings, which I have never disputed as matching at my end and BGs end. What I dispute is the bizarre jump and the mismatch in kWh readings on my bills and recorded by the smart meter. He was super apologetic and offered to run my figures through their modelling systems after the dispute was closed and things like that, to check the usage was tracking in a normal way now. It is.
It does seem odd that one photo of one part of a multifaceted system is taken as evidence that the whole thing is working and has been working correctly for the duration. But hey, I'm not a lawyer.

brianposter

If the Ombudsman will not look at your data, you could try asking Loop support if they can reconcile their data with your meter readings for the disputed period:   https://kb.loop.homes/kb-tickets/new

CazeryBird

What do I say to this?!
"
Thanks for getting in touch and allowing us to resolve your complaint, I’m pleased to say this has now been resolved.

A meter test is the only way that we can investigate a faulty meter, When you have a spike in usage which then drops this is usually due to an increase in usage at the property or a faulty meter.
We do not have a way to calculate what a bill should be when this is based on actual meter readings, as it si not common for a meter to spike and then return to normal.

The information on the bills is the only information that we hold for billing of the meter, I cant see the Privacy team having anything extra for you in relation to the usage or why the bill was higher based on the meter reading given."

CazeryBird

The privacy team are now 16 days past the deadline for returning my information 🙃

brianposter

How are you getting on with Loop and with the journalists ?

CazeryBird

Journalists not interested as amount of dispute not high enough to be exciting. Loop unsure why there are discrepancies. Say there shouldn't be as they get the same data as BG...
In the meantime I received, yesterday, an email and text from BG saying they were sorry I had requested to swap supplier. Then today another email saying they have cancelled the supplier switch as I owe £1999 still. I haven't at any point requested a transfer. So I've emailed to ask for full details of this switch request...
SAR still outstanding and my chasing it hasn't been responded too.

CazeryBird

I'm going to photograph my meter regularly as it was when an erroneous switch was last requested that the leap happened...