Tomato Energy goes bust - here's what you need to know

TroubledTarts

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026275#Comment_82026275

Doesn't apply to this the administrators have 6 years I believe to bill an fire not bound by the back billing rules

MWT

Ofgem tried to get around this problem by having the suppliers put the essence of the back-billing provisions into the suppliers T&C so they would still survive the loss of the Supply Licence, but while I can see those terms in the Octopus T&Cs for example, I cannot see it in the T&Cs for Tomato…

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026510#Comment_82026510

11.16 We will not try to recover charges for Your electricity that are older than 12 months
unless We have already tried to recover these charges, or You have behaved
obstructively or unreasonably.

From their (Tomato) T&Cs v1

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026597#Comment_82026597

Thanks, looks like I had the commercial T&C, so that should be some help then.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026727#Comment_82026727

My view FWIW is the T&Cs only protect while the company is solvent. So if a person never had a bill any amount owed would have to be written off that was over 12 months old at the date of insolvency.
As the T&Cs no longer exist then the administrators can claim the last 12 months, but only those and the 6 year (5 in Scotland) time-limit would apply.

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026846#Comment_82026846

I think we are on the same page, but it is the end of the contract as at the date of appointment of the SoLR and termination of the Supply Licence rather than the date of the insolvency although the two can be the same date of course.

The clock is no longer ticking on the 12 months, just on the 6 years.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026872#Comment_82026872

If the administrators wish to create a debt they can then take to the county court for enforcement, then the only way they can do so is via the consumer contract that was in force during the time the customer was using energy the supplier was entitled to bill. If said contract has terms prohibiting them from raising a bill after 12 months, then they are not going to be able to unilaterally and retrospectively vary those terms to the detriment of the customer as there is no longer any agreement, and even if there was, such a change would be considered unfair under the CRA 2015 and therefore unenforceable. So in my view, the 12 months specified in the contract is as valid today as it was when the tomato was on the vine.

Had there been no such term specified in the contract, then the Limitation Act would prevail and the 6 year clock would be the one that mattered.

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026885#Comment_82026885

I suspect the point is going to be moot as I doubt they are actually going to be able to get sufficient data to bill those that Tomato had previously failed to bill.

FWIW I don't see this as varying the terms, the contract end date is set in stone and that is the basis for the 12 months, there is no survival clause for the 12 month limit to keep rolling past the end of the contract as far as I can see…

Similarly there is no penalty for failing to deliver the final invoice within 6 weeks of that date either.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026887#Comment_82026887

Indeed. Turns out those old-fashioned meter readings Farouk scoffed at had a use after all!

TroubledTarts

Without data from tomato for billing will they not just make it up by way of a guesstimated average and bill anyway? I think that's been done before.

Are they allowed to do that?