Octopus "Reversed Account Charge"

Ectophile

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/check-energy-back-billing-rules

Ofgem rules are that they are not allowed to charge you extra for any energy usage more than 12 months old.

It's not quite as simple as that in reality, but if they have suddenly put your account in debit, then you should be asking to have that debit removed.

masonic

When they did this to me in August last year (rebilled about 18 months of usage) I got a line in my bill "Write off (past billable date)" for additional charges more than 12 months old that took me into negative balance. Was only worth just over a quid to me, but shows the system does usually cancel charges subject to back-billing rules. Don't understand why it wouldn't in your case.

MWT

Ectophile said:

It's not quite as simple as that in reality, but if they have suddenly put your account in debit, then you should be asking to have that debit removed.

... only if the account going into debt happened more than 12 months ago, taking into account the flow of DD payments and the balance on the account...

Generally Octopus do take that into account...

It is perfectly possible to have a change made in 2023 that does not result in the account going negative until the middle of 2024 and so would not be covered by the back-billing rules. 

Qyburn

What was the actual change made, to correct the "error"?  Different price, different consumption, or periods not previously billed at all?

Oscarmax

We have been reversed billed twice by Octopus, they are just tidying up there accounts, it has only been a few pounds either way.

WiserMiser

Best to pay by Monthly Variable Direct Debit then you'll always have the Back Billing protection.  Of course, bigger bills in winter and smaller ones in summer, but you're always in control.

Scot_39

That Octopus statement specifically says as i read it they had not billed you for periods of use in past.  But charging for them now.

If those were in 2023 or even early 24  - then that sounds like textbook backbilling.  

If they were later they are not - they can go back a full 12m.



Ofgem just a couple of months ago warned suppliers to clean up their act on backbilling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yxwyp4jwvo


There's an onus on suplliers to get accurate meter readings at least once per year in their license.

Backbilling the penalty they now pay for not doing so. 

As no longer allowed to add extra units say beyond that 12m.

However their are many misconceptions.  Many who see any changes from longer than  12m ago on a bill are covered - they are not.

They can still rebill and that bill includes corrected charges for already billed units.  So if they changed 2p less for 6000 units for part of 2023 by accident - they could claim the extra 2p x 6000 now. Even longer - if debt rules apply.

That's not covered by backbilling.

As you clearly don't want to provide details here, I'd respectfully suggest you talk to citizens advice or similar in confidence.

And if you are sure your now being charged for units never billed before in that 12m cutoff  - escalate as a complaint - and ask why backbilling hasn't been applied.  And if you don't get any joy - escalate to Ombudsman.

MWT

Scot_39 said:

And if you are sure your now being charged for units never billed before in that 12m cutoff  - escalate as a complaint - and ask why backbilling hasn't been applied.  And if you don't get any joy - escalate to Ombudsman.

... pay attention to the account balance at that time as well though, 12 months is not a cutoff if the account already had a high enough balance to cover the 'new' usage without going into debt...

Octopus have been through this sort of exercise a number of times now and in all the others I've seen they do apply the back-billing rules correctly by applying a credit against any energy that they are not permitted to bill for, so it would be unusual, but obviously not impossible,  for them to make a mistake in that regard

Scot_39

Thanks MWT

I guess perhaps my wording might have been better if have been more like "charged EXTRA for units never billed before".

To cover the potential use of standing credit.

However I also seem to remember their were conflicting views on whether people - certainly not just only whether or not should - but actually had in fact lost some or all of standing credit in past or in past Ombudsman appeals.

And yes back billing and the 12m for accurate billing that goes with it - definitely needed.

Suppliers did let estimated billing run for too long (2.5 years in my mums case - and to add insult to injury - ignoring 4 sets of readings - 2 by siblings, 2 by professional meter readers - all were on account records - none were on bills)

Even since - their have been a few posts here - one for about 4 years of estimated billing iirc. 

MWT

Scot_39 said:

However I also seem to remember their were conflicting views on whether people - certainly not just only whether or not should - but actually had in fact lost some or all of standing credit in past or in past Ombudsman appeals.

The consistent majority of cases we see here recognise that accrued balances can be used to cover charges, even on appeal to the Ombudsman.

Very occasionally we see a decision that runs counter to that but they are not common.