Back billing - but in credit so Energy Ombudsman found in favour of supplier

gpman

More clarification, if more clarification were needed. (unfortunately, it appears it still is for some ;))

ML had Jonathon Brearley, CEO of Ofgem on his MLMS Live earlier.

A question from Gareth was asked:

Please can you confirm if back billing rules are void if you have a credit on your account? If so, where exactly is this documented and why are you allowing suppliers in essence giving them six years to resolve their errors rather than the 12 month limit in their licences?

As well as ML quickly saying "No" to the first part of the question, he provides a longer answer similar to that he has previously said, and it then continued as follows:

ML: That shouldn't be happening should it?

JB: Nope, absolutely right. You cannot be charged by, for more than 12 months back on your energy use, unless for some reason you've got in the way of them being able to read your meter, so if you've been giving meter readings, then they can't bill you for that.

ML: And the fact you're in credit, they can't say we'll just take your credit, they can't do that. They can't just take credit or debt into account. It should not pay for money going back beyond that point. Get militant on their backsides.

JB nods in clear agreement.

Source: The Martin Lewis Money Show Live - Series 15 - Episode 5 - ITVX (login required)

in particular 28:25 - 29:20

MsAnfieldpark

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877813#Comment_81877813

Except it isn’t. The backbilling rule is an explicit prohibition on billing for any energy used more than 12 months prior unless the customer has behaved unreasonably. If they can’t bill it they can’t seek payment for it. This practice needs urgent attention, companies cannot help themselves to their customers’ money to pay debts they are prohibited from billing for and the “ombudsman” should not be sanctioning such egregious practice.

chezzam_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81898289#Comment_81898289

I was going to post the same clip. I was delighted to watch this yesterday. Seems to be a clear cut answer to me from the CEO of Ofgem. But no doubt the EO will still disagree!

QrizB

Seems to be a clear cut answer to me from the CEO of Ofgem.

CEOs are rarely in touch with what's actually happening.

If JB wants the back-billing rule to work the way he thinks it does, he needs to change the way it's been implemented for the last eight-plus years.

If he doesn't change it, we know that it's actually working as intended.

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899778#Comment_81899778

???

Have you even watched the video? You shouldn't actually need to; the transcript is quite self explanatory.

This was nothing to do with what's happening, rather a clear and unambiguous explanation of the rules by the CEO of the regulator that wrote them.

There is nothing to change. Ofgem just needs to enforce what already exists. Enforcing compliance is one of the regulators key roles.

JB was nodding in agreement to ML when ML said to him to "Get militant on their backsides."

MsAnfieldpark

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899800#Comment_81899800

In my family member’s case the energy company claimed a contractual term allowed them to seek return of direct debit refunds on the grounds that if they’d been billing properly in the first place no refund would ever have been made, which drives a coach and horses through the prohibition but seems to have duped many consumers and, worryingly, also the EO judging by what is reported on this forum.
We pointed out that their licence conditions also prohibit them relying on contractual terms to try to get around the backbilling prohibition. They ignored us, probably feeling confident that the Ombudsman will find for them.
We have recently made a complaint to the EO and are about to upload additional information in the form of a submission including a transcript of this part of the episode you referred to. We are minded to say it is reported on this forum that the EO sanctions this practice and if this is the case we suggest they take specialist legal advice before deciding our case.
Our family member is 90 this year and is being hounded by a company that deleted her billing record evidencing a four figure credit balance some years prior, which they have replaced with a zero balance, then falsely stating they had written off all charges prior to the 12 month limit. They also refused to provide copies of the records they deleted, another licence condition breached and conveniently covers up what they had done. We think this is very serious indeed and if the Ombudsman does not find for consumers harmed in this way then widespread harm will continue.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to make a transcript, very helpful.

gpman

Contractual terms can not and do not overrule the regulator

I would advise against telling the ombudsman you think the supplier is wrong because some anonymous person (to you) posted on the internet suggesting it was wrong.

However, please feel free to use any of the links provided within this thread as evidence to support your case with the ombudsman.

The ombudsman decision, whilst guided by the law, is not always consistent with what a law of court would find. The EO is essentially little more than a glorified mediator. They essentially look at the evidence as provided my each side, and form a resolution that they think is both appropriate, fair to the consumer and likely to be mutually acceptable to both parties.

MsAnfieldpark

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907577#Comment_81907577

“I would advise against telling the ombudsman you think the supplier is wrong because some anonymous person (to you) posted on the internet suggesting it was wrong.”

We haven’t done that and absolutely would not! We have long been in correspondence with the supplier before submitting to the Ombudsman. Our fully documented submission is based on an interpretation of the licensing condition that is very much in line with your own. In our case, among other things, we rely on breaches of the general conditions (around transparency etc); of the backbilling prohibition itself, of the condition constraining reliance on contractual terms that are inconsistent with the prohibition and also the refusal to comply with the condition requiring supply of copy documentation (the supplier deleted relevant records, thus covering up that any credit had been appropriated, then refused to provide copies).

I’m dismayed to see it reported here that the “Ombudsman” is buying in to the interpretation advanced by (some/several/all?) suppliers, and if so I think they need to obtain specialist legal advice to get their own house in order rather than proceed on an erroneous basis and add to the injustice consumers are facing here.

EONnextfrustration

Hi. Thank you for all the info above. I need to submit a complaint to the EO after EONnext issuing a 'deadlock letter' and would appreciate your thoughts on what best to include for that submission.

In brief, back billing for the period 2021-24, out of the blue this month, EONnext agree that it is no fault on my part, their error back mainly in 2021, £445+ in debits applied to my account, my account was in credit due to a £225 compensation payment from the utility company for a gas outage and £136 in DD over payments v usage. Eon have used this credit and are claiming "In regulatory terms, "seeking payment" refers to any action that leaves a customer with a debit (debt) balance to pay." and hence they are entitled to my credit.

It seems from the commentaries above that the EO is not consistent in its decisions. As this seems a grey area does anyone have advice on what information and arguments should I supply to best represent my case?

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81944500#Comment_81944500

As a very bare minimum I would suggest pointing out that a compensation payment added to your account does not constitute a payment from you intended to be used to settle a bill and that compensation should have been paid directly to your bank account or by cheque.