Energy supplier refusing to back bill

Terry_Daktil

Hi,
Recently sought help from the ombudsman regarding a direct debit issue with payment adequacy.
The ombudsman couldn't help with that but suggested the remedy of back billing as octopus allowed my direct debit to be set too low.
This remedy was agreed but octopus have not discounted my account.
They have allowed me to build up almost 5k in debt and the ombudsman say it was the energy companies fault and I should be back billed.
The energy company say they have run their dreaded payment adequacy on my account and there are no further discounts and I have been back billed.
I have stated to them that this was not the agreed remedy and have asked the ombudsman to contact them so it is on going.
Back billing means they cannot charge for energy used over 12 months ago right?
Is there a chance of taking the ombudsman result to the small claims track failing compliance?
This is the second time they have failed to implement the ombudsman remedy, i had another case several years ago on a seperate matter.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Ayr_Rage

If both you and the energy company were aware of the increasing debt then this isn't a back billing issue.

Both parties have an obligation to ensure the DD is set at a level that will cover the usage.

MWT

It feels like there is much more to this story as at face-value it seems a somewhat perverse decision by the Ombudsman if the billing for the energy used was all timely.

However to answer the question, no, the back-billing rules do not simply exclude charging for energy used over 12 months ago.

The energy supplier is allowed to use the amounts paid by DD over the period older than the last 12 months and offset that against the energy bill.

So it is not a simple write-off of anything older than 12 months.

Scot_39

Terry_Daktil said:

Back billing means they cannot charge for energy used over 12 months ago right?

No, not an expert on it, but AFAIK, that isnt what backbilling means at all - although sadly a common misconception - but willing to be proven wrong - by those with more knowledge.

Back billing is IMO essentially a very one sided protection - it stops suppliers putting consumers into additional debt by their failure to adequately bill them in the long term - the over 12m condition - by adding extra units.

IMO - I could be wrong - back billing - in simple terms - at least for those whos accounts were in debit (credit can be used to offset extra units as well - but you seem to have been accumulating debit /debt for a while if at £5k) - means 

- they cannot charge for extra - i.e. previously unbilled - energy used more than 12 months ago - not that they cannot bill you for energy used more than 12 months ago.

So in reality

- if they issued bills for 10000 kWh - although they cannot go back and now bill you say for 12000 kWh - adding the 2000kWh if that represents use more than 12months ago - they can still demand payment for the 10000kWh in any corrected billing issued now - so debt based on the 10000 kWh stands - it doesn't magically get written off by backbilling.  

Basically - again only IMO - only the extra 2000kWh is protected by backbilling, the 10,000 kWh is not.

So say they were under billing by 2000 kWh for last 2 years from billing correction - from a 10000 series of bills

So "billed" 0 10000 20000 vs 0 12000 24000 actual corrected update - they could ask for payment for the initial 10000 and the second 12000 - as that under billing of 2000 for second year in the last 12 months - you would have an account balance based on 22000 kWh - not just last years 12000 kWh corrected.

And again IMO they arent allowed to simply apply the 4000kWh assuming its all been recent - it has to be applied across the period - to reasonably reflect the actual likely use periods.

End even then there are exemptions - if for instance you refused to comply with reasonable requests for access / for them to get measurements to make said bills more accurate.

Faulty meters - those not reading at all that is - more interesting.

And as it sounds - if your now in round 2 with ombudsman - this might have been being contested for many months - the date might not be as simple as just 12m from now.

Suspect you really need to talk to an energy charity or someone like Citizens Advice - to make sure the time periods and back billing rules have been followed.

And looking forward - possibly to help you deal with the £5k demand - and any repayment plan that might be needed - whatever the final number is.

Remember the Ombudsman is a two sided organization - not really a consumer aid - like an energy charity or citizens advice - it's their to ensure the rules are followed fairly by both parties.

t0rt0ise

The ofgem rules are here.. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-do-if-you-get-back-bill

It would seem that the OP is covered by the bit that says "your Direct Debit amount was too low to cover any charges due".

QrizB

t0rt0ise said:

The ofgem rules are here.. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-do-if-you-get-back-bill

It would seem that the OP is covered by the bit that says "your Direct Debit amount was too low to cover any charges due".

Those bullet points appear to be "and" clauses, so all three have to apply.

OP seems to have been billed regularly and was aware of the debt, so the first two aren't met.

Scot_39

t0rt0ise said:

The ofgem rules are here.. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-do-if-you-get-back-bill

It would seem that the OP is covered by the bit that says "your Direct Debit amount was too low to cover any charges due".

The key point / word is in the header above the bullet points

"These rules set out when a supplier can charge you for any shortfalls in payment for energy you’ve used."

Shortfalls in payment - not payment at all.

The payments - and the units they were based on - stand.

t0rt0ise

QrizB said:

t0rt0ise said:

The ofgem rules are here.. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-do-if-you-get-back-bill

It would seem that the OP is covered by the bit that says "your Direct Debit amount was too low to cover any charges due".

Those bullet points appear to be "and" clauses, so all three have to apply.

OP seems to have been billed regularly and was aware of the debt, so the first two aren't met.

No. Look at the next bit about when it doesn't apply. Is that an 'and' list too? Definitely not. It's an 'or' list.

Terry_Daktil

Thanks for all the comments. All thoughts are appreciated.

Just to add:
The ombudsman stated i was not billed correctly as I only received monthly statements not a bill. Also, the company did not take corrective measures to stop debt accruing.
They were quite specific on this.
Despite me paying what I could afford it was the energy company who allowed the debt to accrue and back billing should be applied.

The energy company actually agreed to this resolution and its remedies but I have still not received any deduction on my bill.

QrizB

t0rt0ise said:

QrizB said:

t0rt0ise said:

The ofgem rules are here.. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/what-do-if-you-get-back-bill

It would seem that the OP is covered by the bit that says "your Direct Debit amount was too low to cover any charges due".

Those bullet points appear to be "and" clauses, so all three have to apply.

OP seems to have been billed regularly and was aware of the debt, so the first two aren't met.

No. Look at the next bit about when it doesn't apply. Is that an 'and' list too? Definitely not. It's an 'or' list.

I agree that the it that follows is an "or" list, but the list you've quoted from are clearly "and"s.

Terry_Daktil

5 years ago ofcom wrote to all energy suppliers about back billing.
This letter implies 'direct debit set too low' as one of the situations when back billing applies "but not limited to" the examples given. Also it states the customer is not at fault for debt accruing which kind of backs up what the ombudsman ruled in its decision.
The forum won't allow me to post a link as I've only been a member for 13 years. 🤪