Need advice! Not so Good Energy

Did you take meter readings when you moved in and are they what the bill is based on? If theyre not your readings give them and asked to be rebilled

itsjuststar wrote: »

We moved into a new rented accommodation, where the last tenant used Good energy.
As soon as we moved in we changed to another provider, the rates were through the roof with GE and we just couldn't afford it. Since then it has been a nightmare. First they refused the switchover, which we found out about 2 weeks down the line, because they said the last tennant owed them money, so the switch had not been allowed.

I argued this, the man was very rude and stated that the energy supply was with the property and not the tenant, i got through to the complaints department, and 3 months later, they have apologized, offered me £30 compensation and given me a £500.00 bill for use of electricity and gas!

We are a 2 adult and one child family, in a 2 bedroom house, we use a wood burner. This amount is insane and I need to know who to contact about this as the whole thing is plainly unfair and crooked.

thank you

Pass all the details to [EMAIL="consumeraffairs@ofgem.gov.uk"]consumeraffairs@ofgem.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

@Hengus.

Ofgem does, at its discretion, ask for further information from consumers in support of an alleged breach of a specific Standard Licence Condition (SLC). I agree that Ofgem will not investigate an individual complaint against a supplier or award compensation - that is a matter for the supplier and The EO. If I complain to the Regulator, I am expressing dis-satisfaction about a supplier's non-compliance with Regulations. If I raise a formal complaint, then there is a prescribed procedure to follow.

I don't see where any complaint over this matter has been previously lodged with Ofgem. If people do not complain to the Regulator, then they will not take notice. Reporting Good Energy to Ofgem can be done in parallel with a complaint to the supplier/The Energy Ombudsman. Going the standard complaints route could take 16 weeks and more before Ofgem gets to know about it.

I know that we will continue to disagree but, in my view, the more consumers that bring breaches of SLCs to the Regulator's attention then the sooner something will get done. It will also remind Ofgem that it has an ongoing responsibility for ensuring full regulatory compliance by the suppliers that it licences. Consumers deserve nothing less.

Hengus wrote: »

Thanks for quoting my words back at me. Good to see that you are still alive and posting - albeit, under a different username.

I see no breach of SLCs here. A supplier is entitled to block a transfer if a new owner/tenant has not registered with them; particularly, if the account is still in the old tenant's name and there is an outstanding debt.

The OP has raised a specific concern in the form of a complaint against the supplier. The only way that he will get a review of the compensation offered is by escalating the complaint to The Energy Ombudsman.

:rotfl:

I'm so glad you recognise your own words; words you were apparently using so vehemently to dismiss another MSEer's point of view.

It sounds like you've reflected on the advice trying to be expressed to you at that time. :cool:

I don't know what other user id you think I post under here, but I fear you are sorely mistaken on that front too.

A supplier is entitled to block a transfer if a new owner/tenant has not registered with them; particularly, if the account is still in the old tenant's name and there is an outstanding debt.

Really?. Do you have a source for that assertion? :huh:

As I understand it, any objection to switching raised by a supplier should relate to the circumstances of the customer involved.

It therefore follows that if a new customer has moved into a property (as signified by a CoO flag) the new customer should not be blocked from switching for reasons relating to the previous occupant.

Alternatively, if there has been no change in account holder, then the OP should not have been billed at all, but rather to the existing account holder.

Either way, that sounds like there has been a definite breach of licence conditions.