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

chezzam_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81883105#Comment_81883105

Thank you for your replies.

Yes we did.

Their response.

"In cases where a direct debit is in place on an account, the charge recovery action relevant to industry backbilling rules is the direct debit payment itself and not the charges applied to the account. This is because the direct debit is the only charge being recovered. 

If no direct debit is in place, the bill and any charges confirmed in said bill are the charge recovery action. This is because the bill requests payment of the full account balance, rather than a pre-agreed amount via direct debit. This isn't an interpretation, this is how the backbilling regulation works and has done since the current version was brought into effect in 2018." 

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81883151#Comment_81883151

Thanks for that.

I think I would have sought to challenge that on the basis it refers to the 'charge recovery action' and not the billing aspect, just as I challenged a similar response earlier in this thread.

In the meantime, I can confirm that Mr Bill Esterson is still the current Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee

Energy Security and Net Zero Committee - Membership - Committees - UK Parliament

and he is also the MP representing Sefton Central constituency (NW England), and has been a continual Member of Parliament since 6 May 2010

Contact information for Bill Esterson - MPs and Lords - UK Parliament

gpman

So here are the documents that introduced the change in regulations back in 2018, as referred to by the EO.

backbilling_modification_notice_electricityfinal5march2018_-_website.pdf

backbilling_modification_notice_gasfinal5march2018_-_website.pdf

You will see the documents were 'Duly authorised on behalf of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority' who are the governing body of Ofgem.

I think point 7 is worth reiterating here:

"7. The effects of this modification are described in the documents referred to in paragraph 6 of this modification notice. In summary, the effects of this modification include prohibiting suppliers from recovering charges from domestic and microbusiness consumers in respect of units of electricity reasonably considered to have been consumed over 12 months ago, regardless of payment type. The prohibition will not apply in certain circumstances, including where a charge recovery action cannot be taken due to the consumer’s obstructive or manifestly unreasonable behaviour. In addition, the modification requires that terms and conditions of relevant contracts comply with and reflect the effect of the modification, and that licensees do not enforce or take advantage of any incompatible term."

(my highlighting)

I believe this clearly explains the intent of the regulations amended.

gpman

@QuizB

"Ombudsman decisions have been quoted, and referenced in this thread."

Really? I have now skim read the entire thread. Perhaps you would be kind enough to link me to a couple of those posts that provide such references you assert are within this thread, as I am really struggling to locate any of them.

I do not dispute that there may be some anecdotal posts that indicate what a forumite may have received from the EO in response to their individual complaint, but I would respectfully remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Furthermore, many of the assertions advanced in this thread are not related to what the EO has said in response to an individual's complaint at all.

chezzam_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81883338#Comment_81883338

Thanks for this and completely agree - I do not recall seeing anyone sharing references/ evidence / sources that clearly show my case is excluded from the regulations.

I'd really welcome seeing any official sources available for the consumer that support the EOs decision.

QrizB

Sorry OP, they were in a different recent thread; see here.

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81885959#Comment_81885959

Apology accepted.

However, I have now skim read the alternative thread you linked to and still can not appear to see any references / evidence / sources, etc.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to link me to a couple of those posts that provide such references you assert are within that alternative thread, as I am really struggling to locate any of them.

The only thing I do see is you apparently accepting that none exist, at least not from the EO.
You say you cannot find any EO rulings online.
It is true that the EO do not post every ruling online, but they do post some sample case studies
https://www.energyombudsman.org/case-studies
Nothing I can immediately see there regarding back billing though, except this one

Case Study: Back Billing | Energy Ombudsman

but it doesn't appear to cover the specific case of the account being in credit to more than the value of the incorrectly back billed amount

ETA:

The case study does, however, appear to totally undermine the assertion of @MWT earlier in this thread where they stated:

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

The aim of the regulation is absolutely to prevent suppliers from getting paid when there is a previous mistake/failure to bill relating to usage over 12 months before. (subject to the exceptions of prohibition previously given in this thread)

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886014#Comment_81886014

Do please take your challenge to whatever authorities you deem fit, but you are still dealing with the consistent view of the Ombudsman that amounts paid via a DD are considered to be payments and no longer the property of the customer, even to the extent that should the customer request and receive a refund then that refund can be reversed to cover a later discovered error in the billing beyond the last 12 months.

Preventing bill-shock, was the original justification for implementing the rule in the first place, not preventing the supplier from using the payments they had already received.

You are entitled to hold an alternate opinion of course, mine is formed from the many reports of Ombudsman rulings brought to this forum over the years since the rule was first introduced.

I've argued contrary to the Ombudsman's opinion on many occasions but it does not good as the Ombudsman does not of course read this forum or engage in debate. If want to tilt at this particular windmill then I wish you well, but I'm not particularly hopeful…

QrizB

To avoid any doubt, my apology was to the OP. I had confused their thread with the other one.

And this case is consistent with pretty much all other similar cases that have been reported on this forum. There's no reason to think that any mistake has been made by the Ombudsman.

As the OP has quoted from the Ombudsman themselves:

"In cases where a direct debit is in place on an account, the charge recovery action relevant to industry backbilling rules is the direct debit payment itself and not the charges applied to the account. This is because the direct debit is the only charge being recovered. 

If no direct debit is in place, the bill and any charges confirmed in said bill are the charge recovery action. This is because the bill requests payment of the full account balance, rather than a pre-agreed amount via direct debit. This isn't an interpretation, this is how the backbilling regulation works and has done since the current version was brought into effect in 2018." 

It seems clear enough that these are the rules that have been agreed with Ofgem, and they have been applied as intended in this case.

gpman

@chezzam_2

So there you have it. You started this thread requesting help, asking whether the response provided by the EO was correct.

You appear to have received two diametrically opposed answers. To be fair, I guess there could only be two possible answers to the fundamental question raised.

i.e. Yes or no.

Those that have suggested 'no' to be the answer have provided you with umpteen different independent references / evidence / sources, etc. in support of that response (including the applicable SLC, one of Martin Lewis himself telling MPs in parliament, another from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, another from the EO website itself, amongst a number of other resources)

Those that have suggested 'yes' to be the answer have eventually provided you with the source of their conclusion being ..., well..., erm...., that is what the ombudsman told you plus a couple of others (over a 2 year period) so it must be correct.

Remember, as Martin Lewis mentioned, there were 3000 people who complained to the ombudsman in the year ending 2024 alone about back billing. (He was quoting the evidence of another who had already given evidence to the same Committee) Granted, not all of them would have been specifically related to the specific situation of being back billed by the supplier dipping into accrued credit, but still.

I know that it may now be too late, and therefore too difficult, for you to pursue your own case any further (but the opportunity is there if you are so determined), but hopefully this thread will be a valuable resource for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar predicament in the future.