Energy Ombudsman

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82126318#Comment_82126318

Yep,just waiting on Octopus

gpman

Be careful with Octopus; they'll give you any old flannel and attempt to assert that as fact.

I have experience of a very similar situation as you describe, including unusually not filing a case with the EO until just before the 12m limit that applies when a deadlock letter is issued.

So, first of all, and to be fair to Octopus no supplier appears to like this, but according to the legislation applying to GSoP:

8 (7) Where a customer requests that a payment actually or potentially due to be made to the customer under these Regulations is made by a particular payment method, the supplier must not unreasonably withhold agreement to make the payment to the customer by that method.

Source: The Electricity and Gas (Standards of Performance) (Suppliers) Regulations 2015 for the exact wording.

i.e. it does not have to be applied as an account credit.

In regards to normal account credit refund, Octopus said they must do so (I think they claimed for AML reasons) via the last payment method used. In the case I recall, the last payment method was by credit card so Octopus tried that and failed. That was because in the 12+ months since that last payment was made, the credit card provider had cancelled the original card and issued a new one (with a new number)

So then Octopus said they would revert to the previous payment method used to fund the account which was DD. That failed too, I believe because the bank had marked the DD mandate dormant as no collection had been made for 13+ months.

So guess what? Despite all their original protestations of what they claimed was and was not possible/permitted, in the end they had to refund by directly crediting the requested bank account, which they did by Faster Payments.

This was all achieved within the 28 day time limit imposed on the supplier by the EO to implement the agreed remedy in full. It wasn't an EO remedy, but an Octopus Energy proposal made once the deadlocked matter reached the EO, in a final attempt to stop the EO investigating a complaint that Octopus were otherwise destined to lose.

I was tempted to question how Octopus could even issue a proposal to settle a complaint after they had issued a deadlock letter over that same matter. A deadlock letter is supposed to be a formal written statement from the energy supplier stating that they have fully investigated the complaint and have reached their final position and cannot do anything more to resolve it.

Source: https://www.energyombudsman.org/faqs#what-is-a-deadlock-letter

So how could they now agree to meet the customers demands in full, provide a substantial goodwill credit and issue a written apology over their poor handling of the matter? But we decided not to take that final step, quit whilst we were ahead and accept that discretion is the better part of valour.

HillStreetBlues

What I hate is when companies use AML that is not based on any fact.
There is nothing in law that a refund needs to be on the same method of payment.

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128663#Comment_82128663

There are very real issues for a business if they refund to a bank account and amount that was previously paid on a credit card as they can find themselves stuck with a charge-back via the card even though they have refunded to a bank account.

AML does come into play though as using a card fraudulently and then getting the cash refunded to a mule bank account is a known method for extracting cash.

Consumer law does allow a customer to agree to receive a refund via a different method from the original payment but that doesn't oblige the business to actually do it that way because of the AML obligations.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128697#Comment_82128697

I totally understand there can be issues, but there is a big difference between must & want and Octopus claimed they must.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128663#Comment_82128663

The Consumer Rights Act requires it, but only if the customer doesn't agree to a different method.

Ultimately, it just makes it easier for the firm to show they have complied with AML legislation. An energy supplier generally has a Direct Debit set up and has already performed a credit search confirming the customers personal details including address, so the risk is already low.

But all of this is a red herring, because the standard of performance compensation is not a refund. It is a payment direct from the business to the consumer. There is no matching purchase to reverse.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128705#Comment_82128705

I wouldn't really call it a red herring as Octopus claimed it AML. They were on both counts first the AML regs don't state refunds must be returned to the same payment method, I take i they never stated anything about the CRA.
And like you state it has nothing to do with a refund and it's not something you actually paid.

My issue is much the same, they insisted that the WHD was paid as a refund, but it wasn't a refund as I never paid it.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128716#Comment_82128716

That's what I meant by red herring.

To say the WHD is a refund is nonsense. You get the full amount whether or not you spend that much on energy.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128724#Comment_82128724

Sorry, see what you mean now.