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

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882810#Comment_81882810

Martin Lewis also does not agree with the interpretation either.

Here is what he told MPs via an Energy Select Committee in March 2025

Martin Lewis tells MPs: Energy firms CANNOT bill you for energy used over 12 months ago, yet many do

You don't have to watch/listen to the whole video (almost 8 minutes), the initial 10 seconds sums it up nicely.

But if you want more detail, 1:30 to 2:00 talks about the specific issue of debiting money from customers accounts.

gpman

@MWT

"Everyone is free to disagree as much as they want, but the Ombudsman consistently (with a very low number of distensions) rules that the funds previous paid to a supplier are available to be used for what would otherwise be considered to be 'back-billing'."

Can you provide us with a source to support that assertion, please?

"The aim of this rule is not to prevent suppliers from getting paid when there is a previous mistake/failure to bill."

Again, can you provide us with a source to that assertion, please?

"It is there to prevent bill-shock, and no matter how shocking it may feel to get a bill for a period you thought was already paid, it is only considered to be bill-shock if it is not already covered by payments you have made."

And again please, can you provide us with a source to that assertion?

"The ordinary rules for invoicing only limit the period to 6 years, Ofgem tightened that up to only 12 months, which puts a lot of pressure on suppliers already, going a step further to prevent use of existing balances as well feels like a step too far…"

Ok, I think that is fair to say is your opinion, and I will defend your right to express it, but it does not mean I necessarily agree with it, or that it is correct.

gpman

I also appears that Mr Bill Esterson, Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee (at least as at February 2025), also disagree with some unreferenced assertions made within this thread:

"You will be aware of the BBC Radio 4 Moneybox investigation into back-billing by energy companies and may have heard me on the media on Saturday.

I have very strong feelings about this issue. The rules are very straightforward: energy companies, if they have not charged for energy consumed within 12 months, lose any right to do so…."

Source: committees.parliament.uk/publications/46593/documents/238281/default/

chezzam_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882916#Comment_81882916

On Octopus' website - is the following so maybe for clarity they need to add an additional paragraph, something along the lines of….. or so we can take the credit you have built up in the event of back-billing. 😐️

"Most customers pay the same amount each month via Direct Debit, but use more energy in winter and less in summer. That means your balance varies throughout the year as you build credit over the summer to offset higher winter bills.

It's a bit like a bear preparing for hibernation. In summer, you build up enough reserves to see you through winter (when you use more heating and payments are higher) so you come out of the frost feeling good (and without more debt than you'd like)."

QrizB

You can wish for whatever version of the rules you fancy, but the fact remains that the Ombudsman usually rules that credit on an account can be used to pay for energy consumed more than 12 months ago.

If you want this to change, your time will be better spent writing to your MP rather than continuing to argue on this forum.

NewbyForthwith

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882949#Comment_81882949

Absolutely agree! 100%

No-one who is supporting the Ombudsman's decision that the OP is exempt from backbilling seems able to quote any documentation that supports their interpretation. The only documentation found is either terribly written by Ofgem in a way that is not making clear the guidelines, or is being completely ignored by suppliers and the Ombudsman (or most likely both!)

The government and energy secretary need to force Ofgem and the Ombudsman to fully review their interpretation urgently and or provide clear documentation to outline exactly what is and is not in scope of backbilling rules - and in this specific case (and an untold number of previous cases) fully review the Ombudsman's prior (incorrectly interpreted) decisions to ensure suppliers are meeting the terms of their license

NewbyForthwith

Thanks gpman - I was not aware of that letter from the Energy Secretary. That makes it absolutely crystal clear that Ofgem and The Ombudsman are not meeting the intent of backbilling rules! The OP definitely has a strong case for the regulator to overturn the previous decison by the Ombudsman.

QrizB

The OP definitely has a strong case for the regulator to overturn the previous decison by the Ombudsman.

OFGEM does not accept complaints from members of the public, so the strength (or not) of their case is moot.

No-one who is supporting the Ombudsman's decision that the OP is exempt from backbilling seems able to quote any documentation that supports their interpretation.

Ombudsman decisions have been quoted, and referenced in this thread. If you're seeking the Ombudsman's internal guidance, you'll probably need to FOIA it.

gpman

This is what the Energy Ombudsman has to say on the subject of back billing … taken from their ow website

source: What is back billing? | Energy Ombudsman

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81883063#Comment_81883063

Unfortunately, the regulator does not get involved directly in the resolution of specific disputes of consumers.

The only route of appeal after the EO final decision is via a legal challenge in a court of law.

The legal issue here is that the back billing rules are laid out in the Supplier Licence Conditions, and not directly in statute (afaik). I guess the legal approach that could be adopted is that an Energy Supplier requires a licence to legally trade, and that licence requires the supplier to comply with the SLC. - but IANAL.

Still interested to hear from the OP as to if they expressly pointed the EO to the relevant SLC, (as I posted previously in this thread) and if so, what was the EO explanation as to why they did not consider it appropriate to uphold that on this occasion.