Tomato Energy Credit Scam

A_Geordie

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991541#Comment_81991541

That's a fair point, but just because they do not have an active supply, doesn't automatically mean the OP's credit balance wasn't protected. If there was a final balance that needed to be paid, the Tomato account could be treated as active and still on Tomato's books at the time, so there's an argument that it could potentially still fall under the Ofgem's protected credit balance regime and eligible for a credit refund from BG.

OP might be worth contacting Ofgem for further info about what was agreed/ordered. Either the balance will be protected and fall under British Gas to pay out, or the OP becomes an unsecured creditor of Tomato Energy. The third option would be if the balance was protected in another way but from the sounds of it, that didn't happen.

MWT

It would help to know how the balance occurred, for example if this was compensation following an Ombudsman ruling that might make it easier to argue that it should have been transferred as part of the SoLR process, but if it was one of the bill credits that the CEO seemed to be offering to people who were not being billed in the first place then there is less chance that it is every going to get paid…

QrizB

Can you please elaborate why they are not required to ringfence credit balances.

Considering the inherent difficulties in proving the absence of something, it would be simpler if you could quote exactly which Standard Licence Condition you think requires them to do so.

You've mentioned the SLCs twice now without being specific about which SLC you're relying on.

Meanwhile, I'll point you to this:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2023-0040/CDP-2023-0040.pdf

It states on page 2:

Ofgem’s rules do not limit the amount of credit suppliers can hold or what they can and cannot do with the money.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991590#Comment_81991590

Even if OP left 3 months before they went bust?

So SoLR was nothing OP was involved in 🤷‍♀️

PJ12

Thanks for all your useful comments.

MWT, I think the reason why I built up a credit balance with TE was because we are not on a smart meter and over the winter months TE were "estimating" our usage and so wacked up the Direct Debit, despite protests from myself. They were been supplied with meter readings but were happy to have my money in their account. I accept a small credit balance but not £145.

Thankyou QrizB for the link. According to the OFGEM rules TE should repay credit balances within 10 days of the final bill. My final bill showing the credit balance was dated 28/10/25, TE went into Administration 8 days later on the 5/11/25. I spoke to TE the day before the final bill and they assured me that the balance would be paid.

Thankyou born_again for the link to BG. If BG had followed their own rules advice this would not be an issue and they should have refunded me months ago.

I suppose it depends on what responsibilities a SLOR have, and what the definition of a customer is. Until the account is closed and the balance is reduced to zero I am still a customer. It should work both ways around as if I left TE with a credit debit, I could be pretty certain that BG would be on my case straight away demanding payment.

QrizB

Another question, sorry! In your opening post you said:

In July 2024 I left Tomato Energy to a new supplier

I'd have expected you to receive your final bill from Tomato within eight weeks, ie. by September 2024.

You've now said:

My final bill showing the credit balance was dated 28/10/25

That's more than a year later than it should be. What happened during that year to cause this delay?

PJ12

Sorry my mistake it should read July 2025, 3 months until the final bill.

A_Geordie

@QrizB

Considering the inherent difficulties in proving the absence of something, it would be simpler if you could quote exactly which Standard Licence Condition you think requires them to do so.

I'm not sure I'm following this logic. I indicated the SLCs say that credit balances can and must be protected, and you said that I'm wrong or have misunderstood. So I would have expected you to tell me why I'm wrong and be able to back it up with something tangible or at least a plausible explanation. If your difficulties in proving the absence of something that doesn't exist, you could have just said that no obligation exists.

Anyway:

Gas Supply Standard Licence Conditions, Condition 4D has a complete section on protecting credit balances.

Electricity Supply Standard Licence Conditions, Condition 4D has the same section outlined in the gas licence conditions.

Latest licence conditions are here: Licence Conditions | Ofgem

Meanwhile, I'll point you to this:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2023-0040/CDP-2023-0040.pdf

There are two problems with what you have pointed to. First, it is a briefing note to parliament members used for debates so has no legal force or value. Second, it is dated February 2023 whereas Ofgem updated the licence conditions to include the protection of credit balances around September 2023.

@PJ12 You might find this Ofgem statement useful.

Ofgem appoints British Gas to take on customers of Tomato Energy | Ofgem

Particularly this:

Funds that current and former domestic customers of the supplier have paid into their accounts will be protected, where they are in credit. Domestic customers will also be protected by the energy price cap with their new supplier.   

Seems to me BG are liable to pay here.

PJ12

Thanks A_Geordie, the Statement on the OFGEM web site could not be clearer, yet BG are in total denial. I will contact BG and OFGEM and remind them of it.

MWT

Based on everything posted so far it does seem that the remaining balance on the account would qualify as a legitimate customer balance which was paid for the supply of energy, and should have been repaid or transferred to the SoLR.

There may be some debate about how recently they switched away, but it is not like the balance is anything other than money paid for energy so should be protected.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the customer accounts were in such a bad state that they didn't even try to identify recently departed customers…