Octopus Tracker – two properties placed on different formulas (2025 v1 vs 2026 v1) despite identical

Trackeruser

I’m hoping the tariff‑formula experts here can shed some light on an inconsistency I’ve encountered with Octopus.

I have two properties, both switched to Octopus Tracker at the same time:

• Property 1 – placed on Tracker April 2026 v1
• Property 2 – placed on Tracker 2025 v1

Both show the same contract end date: 14 April 2027, yet Octopus have put them on different formula versions.

Octopus’s explanation is that “the version depends on when each contract was set up or renewed”, but in this case both contracts were initiated together, and I can’t see any obvious reason why one supply point would be assigned 2026 v1 while the other remains on 2025 v1.

I’ve already arranged a switch away from Octopus for the Property 1, but before that goes through I wanted to check whether anyone here has seen similar mismatches — and whether this looks like a setup error rather than a legitimate version difference.

Happy to provide screenshots of the formula lines if helpful.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Woodstok2000

Are the contract start dates the same for both properties too?

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6680510/ctopus-tracker-two-properties-placed-on-different-formulas-2025-v1-vs-2026-v1-despite-identical

but in this case both contracts were initiated together,

What was that date?

… and were they both in the same email or was this initiated online or a phone call…?

QrizB

There have been occasions when Octopus have inadvertently put customers on older versions of their tariffs. It looks like this is what has happened here.

The older versions are generally cheaper, so you've benefitted from their error.

(A colleague of mine managed to renew twice on an obsolete version of Octopus Go, and was paying 5p/kWh for two years when everyone else was paying 7p.)

Trackeruser

Both tracker contracts started in August 2024, and have continued without a break.

MWT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82110391#Comment_82110391

Then property 2 got lucky, just a mistake that it wasn't updated.