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

gpman

@chezzam_2

If you decide not to pursue your case further, I know this old facebook post is almost a year old now, but…

Martin Lewis - Energy firms AREN'T allowed to back-bill... | Facebook

back billing continues to be one of Martin's hobby horses currently. He may be particularly interested in your case as he wanted to know the outcome of cases. You can try to contact Martin via this site, or perhaps better through his social media channels (facebook or X)

Not on either of those? Perhaps try him via his MLMS Live

martinlewis@itv.com

The email address is not direct to Martin, but goes to the ITV production team for his show.

I believe his next show is planned for Tuesday 24th February 2026, and I understood he plans to have the CEO of Ofgem on that, and was seeking questions to put to him. (but plans can and do change at short notice)

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886257#Comment_81886257

Ah, there is a straw man, knock it down…

NewbyForthwith

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886187#Comment_81886187

“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.”

I’d love to see where these rules are written down so that all parties - consumers, Ofgem, Ombudsman and suppliers - are all playing to the same rules.

Bendo

Make a FOI request to Ofgem for their actual rule?

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81887350#Comment_81887350

Go ahead.

I think the point being made was that the assertion about the existence of rules without any evidence to support such rules even existing is being questioned. It is for the asserter to provide such references / evidence / sources, etc. in support of their assertion, especially if requested to do so, if they wish to have any hope in convincing others currently dubious as to the veracity of such spurious assertion.

What you are attempting to suggest is someone should seek a needle in a haystack, when they are dubious as to whether there even exists any needle in the haystack.

We have already had apologies given that within this thread due to sending people on wild goose chases to search for that elusive needle only to then be informed, sorry, wrong haystack, I meant that one over there. Neither haystack appeared to have had any needles concealed within. If you feel the elusive needle exists, please locate it yourself and post it here to prove the assertion was correct and the naysayers incorrect.

Polite reminder from the forum rules:

"'Fake news' has a significant impact in society, and it is wise to verify something before blindly stating it as true, or sharing it on a public Forum. Be wise. If we feel something does cross the line and/or is harmful or detrimental to our users, we reserve the right to remove it."

… and I'm sure none of us want that, do we? If you post something as fact that is, or is likely to be, contentious, please post a source to support your assertion. You may still fall foul of the above forum rule, but at least an informed decision can be made as to the veracity or otherwise of that assertion.

gpman

Just a reminder to those seeking rules relating to back billing, they do exist and are posted in this thread here

It's the alternative interpretation of those rules that some seek to advance that others struggle to comprehend. One interpretation is supported by umpteen references / evidence / sources, etc. in support of that interpretation, the other is supported by what exactly? That the only reference to support their interpretation appears to be that which is being questioned the the OP originally (plus a couple of anecdotal posts by anonymous posters who have been provided with a similar interpretation from the same source being questioned)

chezzam_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886274#Comment_81886274

Many thanks again for your support! Before starting this thread on the forum we did email Martin Lewis and got a standard response saying we should check this forum or start a new thread.

My partner has since also emailed Martin at ITV, our MP and Ofgem.

It would be great if Martin does pick up on our case for the show!!

However not all is lost as we will continue to share our negative experience we have gone through with Octopus and the EO from September to February and warn people about the potential downside of building a credit so that more people are aware and can make informed decisions.

All the best.

WiserMiser

How sadly typical of dozy Ofgem that even knowledgeable anoraks can't agree what the rules are supposed to mean. What chance does the ordinary person have of navigating through this minefield?

The obvious answer that Martin et al should be campaigning to ban back billing for more than 12m full stop. That would be far better because it's much easier to understand, treating suppliers and consumers fairly and equally.

Scot_39

The rules may need to be clarified - but not changed.

The SLCs though are not meant for us as consumers and are not Ofgems only method of communicating with suppliers and / or the Ombudsman. I wonder how many here have ever read the full 613 pages of the Electricity "Supply Licence Standard Conditions" including the terse 2 pages on backbilling.

We don't need more rules to prevent people paying for energy they have consumed.

There is nothing fair to suppliers about adding to their debts by writing off all disputed bills - and unlike the ML's of the world - Ofgem and the EO - have to and so do take both sides into account.

Suppliers do not pay for others debts - ultimately often the rest of us who do pay our bills as consumers do.

£50 and counting at cap level - for the cumulative £4.48bn as of Q3 2025 - and still growing.

gpman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81887672#Comment_81887672

"There is nothing fair to suppliers about adding to their debts by writing off all disputed bills - and unlike the ML's of the world - Ofgem and the EO - have to and so do take both sides into account.

Suppliers do not pay for others debts - ultimately often the rest of us who do pay our bills as consumers do.

£50 and counting at cap level - for the cumulative £4.48bn as of Q3 2025 - and still growing."

Another reason people should get themselves off the Pants Cap.

Remember the original reason for it's introduction? Yes to help avoid customers being ripped off by suppliers who were clearly overcharging those who were on the suppliers default tariff. It's now morphed into, or at least being used for, something quite different.

And whilst doing that, we may as well get rid of standing charges too.

Remind me, who has been championing both the above?

Then allow the free market competitive forces to rule the pricing of our energy, whilst forcing everyone to pay for what they actually use. You use more you pay correspondingly more; you use less you pay correspondingly less.
(and those that still won't pay should be able to be put onto pre-payment by their supplier)

Alternatively, just re-nationalise the whole industry and allow the government set what we should pay for our energy.

I'm not in favour of the latter, but the current selective mixture of capitalist and communist ideologies obviously is not working well for our energy supply today.

Oops, possibly now getting too political for here, as well as drifting off topic for the intended subject matter of this thread, so I'll leave it there.