Bulb and Ombudsman

As I mentioned, I had two cases of energy companies with Ombudsman. This is the second one finally sorted.

The other case with So.Energy was about a final bill simply using the wrong meter readings, complicated by the fact that one was an export reading. It was all sorted.

Arguably the Bulb one actually way simpler: 2 years after leaving them, and settling the final bill, they decided, via a new bill, rebelling for my previous usage, that I now owed £7k. The reason this is a "simple" case is that there is an OFGEM rule which bans charging for usage more than a year before the bill. It is a very simple rule.

It is a licence condition, and is also in the terms and conditions (it has to be).

So, a bill, out of the blue, for usage more than 2 years before, is simply not valid. The rule and and terms are simple. So I should have been able to simply point this out to them, and it be the end of the matter.

Which makes no sense really, it sort of says they cannot charge more, but they have charged more.

They even tell the Ombudsman that the back billing rules don't apply, which makes no sense. They told me on Twitter as well that the rule does not apply. This was somewhat stressful to say the least as I thought I was on solid ground here. Oddly they told the ombudsman the new bill was because of new closing readings from the new supplier, which also makes no sense as the new bill had the same closing readings as the previous bills.

So, how did it go with the Ombudsman?

Well, in the end it went well, but it was a hell of a challenge. For a start, it took a long time to get anywhere, as with the other case. I actually ended up making the complaint covering several issues: One was "this latest bill is simply invalid under back billing rules as it all for usage more than a year before", but because Bulb raised this bill I looked back, and spotted they had also previously back billed more than a year, and they had also changed the opening electricity reading to something totally made up, using 09796 not 51485, which is crazy!

The response from the Ombudsman was overly complicated, and hard to understand, instead of simply saying the latest bill is invalid, they go on about a dummy meter exchange and reissuing the bill correctly.

I basically said I could not "accept" the decision if I could not understand the decision or what it could mean financially, and they basically said until I accept the decision they cannot order Bulb to action it, and only then would they know the financial implication.

The other issue is that the response and several exchanges with the ombudsman said things like "So if Bulb revise the bill and there are unforeseen charges it needs to apply backbilling. Backbilling does not apply if you are in credit or the charges have decreased upon billing you accurately."

Obviously the idea that if there are unforeseen charges they would apply back billing was a concern. It seemed to suggest that I would be back billed for unforeseen charges.

At one point I said: "To be 100% crystal clear, accepting this decision cannot result in me owing Bulb any money at this point, as the only money they are currently asking me for is for an invalid backbilled charge two years after leaving, and any additional charges they find are too late and so cannot be backbilled now." and got the reply "Backbilling will apply if there there are unforeseen charges (increased debt)."

I exchanged dozens of messages and finally got to the bottom of it. When they say "backbilling" what they mean is "the OFGEM anti-back billing rule / licence condition". So they mean "...there are unforeseen charges it needs to apply the anti-back billing rule and not back bill you". That is essentially the exact opposite of what was actually said.

Then they suggested there could be some additional charges if the new bill to replace the £14k bill they had raised was lower, but still left me owning money (there had been a £7k credit first, hence balance being £7k now). This turned out to be because she misunderstood how long ago it was and thought some of the (revised) usage was within a year still.

It took a long time to get a clear answer to "So the worst that can happen, from my point of view, is that I still owe nothing. The best is that they owe me some." - at which point I accepted the decision.

What did Bulb do?

They harassed me by calls, emails, and in writing all the time, even after saying they would wait for the outcome of the ombudsman case they then harassed me again. It is ridiculous.

Eventually, on the last day allowed, they issued a new bill, it showed me in credit (by several thousand in fact).

I advised bank details and they sent the £150 compensation they were ordered to. Not the credit balance.

I queried, and they say any credit would be sent once the final bill was raised (which web site said would be 31st May).

I finally said I would advise the Ombudsman that the matter was not resolved unless they confirmed either no additional bill (how could there be) and paid me the balance, or confirmed the extra final bill (which I would then dispute via the Ombudsman). I was not going to wait a month.

To my surprise, and as 10 separate smaller payments all at once, they have sent me the balance.

Technically I think I could argue for more - the re-bill covers the whole period I had service, but there was a period of time in the middle of service where I did not have a bill within 12 months of usage, so they should not now be billing me for that period of time in the middle. But the whole experience of dealing with Bulb and the Ombudsman has been so much hassle, pursuing that extra bit is not worth it (I'm clearly getting old).

Irony?

The irony here is I left Bulb a couple of years ago and had paid in full. I did not realise they had overcharged me, nor by how much. Had they not decided to bill me for an extra £7k, they would have got away with it.

In my defence, until Bulb, I had not had experience of such inept energy companies, and did not expect to have to check every bill in detail to look for such mistakes.

Update: Bulb then later sent a standard email saying they are compensating people an extra 20% of refunded amount, which was a nice bonus. Yes, it arrived!

Energy companies

I am actually rather concerned over energy company billing.

I mean some are not bad, and Octopus are possibly the best, but they too have issues. But they are the gold standard compared to almost anyone else.

We (A&A) bill people for broadband and telephony and all sorts, and we try hard to make the bills clear. When mistakes or corrections or adjustments (e.g. leaving mid month) happen we issue a clear credit note to correct it and make it clear. We very carefully follow VAT rules on such things.

But I had no idea how good we were until I saw energy bills. I really think they are just unbelievably bad, and even to the point that there is systematic fraud going on (and I do not say that lightly). Either that or quite negligent levels incompetence.

I mean seriously, this is such a mess I struggle to make sense of it.

What they seem to do is re-bill some period and maybe do some sort of credit or maybe not, it is not clear. I have had British Gas bill me for several months again with no explanation why, and no actual clear credit or cancelling of specific previous bills in some way. So.Energy are just as bad.

In fact I don't think I have ever had any change of energy supplier that has not involved an error. This is pretty serious. And talking on social media, this seems common. This seems systematic.

From what I can tell there is some industry process of "handover readings" for meters. But even then, it seems to not work, and apparently there is no such process for export readings at all!

I have had a company swear blind I have to pay some new balance after leaving to a new meter reading even though the previous final bill was based on a "smart meter reading", yet somehow at the same time be adamant that the smart meter reading is not wrong. A direct contradiction that they somehow manage to hold in their head (electric monks would be proud of this). And yes, none of them understand the word "final". That case was a small amount and cancelled as "good will".

I currently have two cases with the energy ombudsman. They are the same bunch that caused me a lot of stress as an ISP, but putting that aside, so far they are sort of working.

So.Energy

This is the lesser of the problem companies of late. Their issues are simple. They were unable to make the meter show export, but they were unable to accept a meter reading without but import and export entered. So when I left them they did not have supplied closing readings from me for each. (Gas was OK).

But this was not the only problem. They had a smart meter reading for import, and raised a bill. But they cancelled that and raised a new bill with a massively higher closing reading (hundreds of pounds more). They ignored all my emails and complaints.

This new reading was totally made up and wrong. They knew it was wrong as they had a smart meter reading during the day I left. It was so wrong that in the hours since the smart meter reading, to be right, would have blown the supply fuse. I can only conclude this is criminal fraud, in my opinion, making up false data (a lie) for financial gain. Then refusing to fix it makes it worse.

They also "estimated" the export. Well, once I left, Octopus gave me a smart meter reading for export. Simple. So I told so.energy and they just ignored me.

And that was it - they would not fix - they just harassed me for payment.

What is worse? Well, I took to ombudsman and of course they agreed with me. But so.energy insisted the new made up closing reading was what octopus gave them. It was not. Octopus provided screenshots of their submissions on the industry process for this. It was a lie. A lie for financial gain, also known again as criminal fraud. They lied to the ombudsman. I have reported to Action Fraud. Surely this means directors going to prison? But no, that won't happen.

What is worse? Ombudsman told them to sort final readings. They told ombudsman they have implemented their decision. Guess what? Another lie. They have changed import final reading but not export, as ordered by ombudsman. That will be another of those lies for financial gain, also known as criminal fraud. Another case for directors to go to jail? I mean it could be incompetence but it would have to be on a monumental scale for this many errors.

I await outcome - I'll update here.

Bulb

Bulb are even more special, and this is really crazy.

I was with them a few years at my old address. And we started off OK, ish, but then they went quiet for a couple of years, no bills, just regular direct debits. No requests for meter readings. Nothing.

When I left they did a final bill, and refunded the over collected balance. I thought that was it. *final* bill paid.

But no, over two years later, a credit to cancel the final bill and a £14,000 bill, and repeated demands for payments over over £7k by email and telephone.

So I looked in to it, and they actually had charged me based on electricity from a reading of 09796 when actually final reading from previous supplier was 51485. This is a huge difference. It appears the first bill they did was from 46791, which was also wrong. How is this simple process of a reading handover so broken between suppliers.

What I also found was that the previous "final bill" (no, none of them know the meaning of "final") was they charged for a period covering more than a year. This is not allowed, not just by OFGEM rules but by their own terms and conditions. So the bill I actually paid was not valid and I am due a refund.

Of course this new £14k bill was also for usage more than 12 months before, being over 2 years after leaving them, so invalid. That is not allowed by OFGEM rules or their own terms and conditions.

If they had not done this I would not realised I had already been ripped off on the previous final bill.

So over to ombudsman, and an update will be here soon.

But their harassment is over the top - calls and emails constantly demanding money, even though they know it is with the ombudsman. I am seriously tempted to sue for compensation for the harassment once this is sorted anyway. It is very stressful.

0

It is funny how we like to see numbers clock over, whether a simple anniversary or birthday, or the odometer on a car, or even years.

Until the year 2000 I do not recall anyone having any issue with the common way decades were numbered. The '20s were 1920-1929 (inclusive), and so on. No issue, no doubt, no confusion. Sadly the year 2000, being a change of millennium, caused many to say "technically the new millennium does not start until 2001 as there was no year 0". This is one rare cases where I err aware from "technically correct" for a change, and even question if it is technically correct. The years are projected back from a more recently invented calendar and indeed go from 1BC to 1AD in one calendar. So on that basis, yes, a millennium starting at the start of 1AD means a new one in 2001. But why consider the start 1AD not 1BC? All evidence suggests that was not when Jesus was born, if he existed, so you should probably consider the third millennium starting maybe spring 2004 [citation needed]. You are picking an arbitrary start point - why?

However, it depends which calendar you pick obviously. We use the Gregorian calendar, but other calendars (e.g. astronomical) do have a year 0 and otherwise align with the Gregorian calendar (for current years). So one can be "technically correct" and still have a new millennium starting at the start of 2000 without any difficulty.

My point all along was that the only reason to consider the change of millennium as "special" in any way is the base 10 numbering that we use, and that a clocking round of 1000 years happens very rarely (oddly enough, every 1000 years), and so the only logical point to consider "special" is when the year number "clocks round" 1999 to 2000. If you are not doing it then, then why even consider 1000 special, why not consider multiples of 324.6 years as "special"?

I had thought this was all old news, but, to my surprise, I see people even now on social media saying the next decade does not start until 2021 as "there wasn't a year 0", continuing this nonsense. Sorry, but (Gregorian) decades only make sense as "special" if you consider them to be the years ending 0 to 9 (inclusive), end of story. So if anyone says otherwise just say you are using the astronomical calendar which does have a year 0, and see how they cope with that. Good luck.

But this may also help (thanks to xkcd)

P.S. this was raging on twitter later in the day on the 1st, and someone even posted that "At age 21 you start your third decade", LOL. No, 1st is 0-9, 2nd is 10-19, and 3rd is 20-29. Anyway, for those insisting "it" starts in 2021, point out that what "it" is, in that case, is "the 203rd decade of the Gregorian calendar" and not "the '20s". The '20s start in 2020, end of story.

P.P.S. a reminder that it is '20s, and not 20's, unless you are using a possessive, like "The '20's greatest hits".

---

Anyway, on a more amusing note, it seems Bulb may have finally fixed my account so I can submit a meter reading (they have been messed up since I signed up for no apparent reason, and just emailed me to say fixed). Yay, so a meter reading is needed.

I was about to submit one, on 31st Dec, and noticed it was close... very close...

This has resulted in my spending many hours on the 31st Dec, turning on extra high power kit in the house for a while, and even running the tumble drier, wasting many pence worth of electricity in order to get this picture (well, maybe not wasting as it means gas heating needs less power as house is warmer)...

It is a thing of beauty, is it not?

To my surprise Bulb had no problem with my submitting the meter reading of 00000.

All the "there was not a year 0" people would say I should not consider my meter to have rolled over until 00003 (or whatever it was when first installed).

---

There is one clock I'd rather not reach 0 though :-

When is a final bill not a final bill? British Gas

British Gas

I changed energy supplier from British Gas to Bulb. Given that my son now has an electric car, this seemed a responsible thing to do so as to be buying 100% renewable energy, and actually Bulb were a tad cheaper.

I got the final bill from British Gas, paid it, and then started paying Bulb. All pretty seamless (apart from the smart meter now being dumb). I did not expect to hear any more from British Gas, obviously.

In fact, the final bill had actual smart meter readings for the date I left them, so not doubt whatsoever that I had paid correctly up to the reading on that day, no estimates.

To my surprise, nearly 5 months later, I get another "final" bill from British Gas!

Yes, it covers a different, longer, overlapping period.

But strangely the bill is now for an estimated final reading?

There is nothing on this bill saying it is a replacement of the previous bill (or bills), and no formal VAT credit note received. Indeed it lists charges for gas and electricity totalling £384.36, but showing balance and previous payments making only £19.49 due.

Unsurprisingly, even I was confused, especially at the electricity charge being based on an estimated final reading not an actual one. I thought smart meters meant an end to estimated readings, and indeed the previous "final bill" made that clear.

What ensued was a long, and very frustrating, conversation with British Gas, I can't be arsed to publish the recording as it is very repetitive to be honest. This blog is mind numbing enough without it.

Sadly I had someone that refused to actually answer questions most of the time, or even acknowledge the point I was making, constantly saying things like "you have mentioned that before" rather than agreeing, or even disagreeing, with what I was saying.

He "explained" that I have a new bill because my new energy supplier contacted them to "correct" the final electricity meter reading from 51361 to 51485, and that is why the £19.49 was due. He explained this was a replacement of my last bill and that the gas reading had not changed, which makes the bill even more confusing, but OK. I have no idea why Bulb would have contacted British Gas to make such a change.

I explained that British Gas have smart meters. That the previous final bill had a smart meter reading of 51361. He confirmed smart meters are meant to be "100% accurate", and after much going round in circles he agreed that the new supplier "must have sent incorrect information".

Well, from my point of view that is the end of the matter: I have paid British Gas fully up to the "100% accurate" smart meter reading for the day I left them, done. This new "final" bill is based on incorrect information - information British Gas know for a fact (based on their "100% accurate" smart meter reading) is incorrect. So I don't need to pay it, do I?

He really got annoying with the "you mentioned that before" replies - so much so that at one point I said "Yes, I have, but is what I am saying incorrect?" which he refused to answer.

He also got annoying with the repeated "I just need to explain why you have this bill" and I kept saying "You explained, it was new supplier sending you incorrect information, but as you know it is incorrect I don't have to pay it". He eventually said I could not just ignore the bill and that I would have to contact the new supplier - why?!?! How is that my job?

No matter how many times I explained that the final meter reading is a matter of fact, one that they have absolute proof to confirm (smart meter reading), and that I have paid all usage up to that 100% accurate" final smart meter reading on the day I left so could not possibly owe any more, he would have none of it. He just kept trying to "explain" why I have this new "final" bill!

We did have one slight digression which really made no sense: He said that even though the first final bill said "smart meter reading" the 51361 shown was actually what Bulb had told them. Obviously saying it is a "smart meter reading" is a tad misleading if it is not so (fraudulent maybe?). I asked him what the actual smart meter reading was and he (eventually) confirmed it was in fact 51361. So basically Bulb had confirmed the same meter reading that British Gas had actually taken - even more proof that this matter of fact was correctly recorded the first time (by both energy suppliers).

First "final" bill


New "final" bill


We were going round in circles so I finally resorted to stating that as they knew the factually correct meter reading, they know that what they have on record now is wrong. It is wrong personal information and so I formally requested that they correct the incorrect personal information they hold on me as required by GDPR and the Data Protection Act. I had to insist on this many times. I had to ask if he would be correcting the data many times, and insist on a "yes" or "no" answer before finally getting a "no"!

I then tried to get him to answer as to whether he understood that correcting incorrect personal information was a legal requirement. He refused to give a "yes" or "no" answer and finally went to talk to someone and came back saying he would credit the bill and nothing is owed.

No acceptance that they had the correct final meter readings as a matter of fact.
No acceptance they have any obligation to correct incorrect personal information.
Nothing.

Oh, well, at least it is sorted, but just really annoying conversation to have.

Anyway I ends by saying I was making a Subject Access Request and required all data including all smart meter readings ever. Apparently I'll had that in 7 days, nice! It should be interesting.

Bulb

Anyway, having sorted all of this I checked my Bulb bills. I pay them a fixed monthly amount by Direct Debit, so had not actually checked the detailed bills. But this seemed like a good time to do it.

My first 3 Bulb statements charged £0.00 for electricity usage, estimated meter readings 46791 to 46791, and then a bill for £1,496.61 for 46791 to 59129 (my reading).

Well, apart from a very strange way of doing estimates, that initial meter reading of 46791 is rather at odds with the final meter reading of 51361 up to which I had paid British Gas, and it does not even match the 51485 that British Gas claimed Bulb has sent them as a "correction".

We'll see how well Bulb sort that one out tomorrow when they are open.

Prediction: Bulb tell British Gas 46791 and I get a large credit from British Gas, but they won't know how to actually pay me money...


Seriously, how is something so stunningly simple handled so badly by two different energy suppliers. Crazy!

P.S. Sorry, before someone says this - yes, he could have said something like "There needs to be an agreed handover reading which may not be the same as the smart meter reading because of time of day or it being taken a day before or after, etc, but the bill is based on the agreed handover reading which both energy suppliers used as the reference to stop and start billing". He did not say that. Had he said that it would have made more sense except for Bulb working on such a completely different starting reading. Also, assuming that is the case, it would be better for the bill to say "agreed handover reading" rather than either "smart meter reading" or "estimated reading". They also need to not simply "replace" two previous bills with no explanation whatsoever.