Eon Next - Back billing issue?

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861686#Comment_81861686

I'm not sure if this has been tested woth the ombudsman. I understsnd the energy company view that they are not breaking back nilling rules as theyre not seeking new payment, but there is at least a credible argument that deducting costs from a credit balance is equivalent to seeking new payment.

If you can remove the credit balance, do it ASAP. Suppliers cannot withhold a credit balance unless they have a valid reason - it would be an interesting test to see if ofgem regards a 3 year old (contested?) charge that wouldn't apply under back billing rules as 'reasonable'.

Otherwise youve got nothing to lose by escalating the complaint and ultimately involving ofgem. Would be interesting to see how it plays out.

QrizB

I'm not sure if this has been tested woth the ombudsman.

It has been tested with the Ombudsman.

If you can remove the credit balance, do it ASAP.

As previously stated, suppliers are allowed to ignore any balance refunds when calculating back-billing.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861858#Comment_81861858

Can you share your evidence of that? I couldn't find any cases, or any specific rules on credit balances in the ofgem guidance.

TimeLord1

If they already have your money (in your credit balance), they aren't "seeking" to recover a debt; they are simply correcting your account balance.

Had they sent out demand letters after 36 months without being in credit or having readings submitted then he had a case. All they have done is updated the account to correct it.

Welshpoolfan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862021#Comment_81862021

The regulations, as far as I can tell, say "where the licensee or any Representative issues a Bill to a Domestic Customer or otherwise seeks to recover (including via aPrepayment Meter) Charges"

I would say that issuing me with a bill and then taking money from my account would fall under "issues a Bill"

TimeLord1

I think the only thing you may get some account credit for is their failure to administer your communications correctly; were they administered by letterbox or email? If they swapped the meter, did they fit a smart meter? I'm curious because you was submitting manual readings.

Welshpoolfan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862148#Comment_81862148

Which communications?

I don't have a smart meter. When I moved into the property there was a pre-payment meter at the property that I requested they replace with a normal meter and they refused. This eventually went to the Ombudsman and the decision was that they had to change the meter for me and because they had acted so unreasonably through the process they had to give me £100 as an apology. This was done in January 2023 (around the time of this back bill). They did this through crediting my account with £100 extra credit and I never took this out as I thought it would be a helpful buffer against unexpected bills so that I could keep my Direct Debit static for budgeting purposes.

TimeLord1

To me it's the lack of correspondence between 2023 and now that is the only thing I see they owe you an explanation about. Personally I wouldn't leave anything in credit and would remove the direct debit if you think you'll end up in debt. Paying by debit is slightly costly but stops them from helping themselves until you agree with the charges.

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862052#Comment_81862052

They are not taking extra money from you beyond what you have already paid them, and yes the Ombudsman has upheld that position many times, with only a very few perverse decisions going the other way.

The fundamental point is that you are paying them with your DD, not depositing money in a savings account.

It is not your money once you pay it to them, and as indicated above, even if you request a refund from your account balance the supplier is entitled to reverse the refund if it later comes to light that there was consumption that should have been paid for.

The purpose of the back-billing rules is not to let people evade paying for energy they have consumed, it is to prevent 'bill shock', and the Ombudsman has previously upheld many times that you can't suffer bill-shock when amounts you have already paid to the supplier are used for the purpose they were intended for, covering actual use.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862860#Comment_81862860

Where are these ombudsman decisions documented?