Gosh you're busy on here. Thanks! Would i be right that the prepayment meter will take the daily charge everyday at GMT 00:00 regardless of whether the meter is in "emergency"/debit or not? If i am right in that assumption then it was paid to Octopus when i topped up and became in credit. The paper bills have not been paid. Whilst, she upheld my complaint on another matter, the ombudsman suggested i should pay the paperbill regardless and got quite angry/stern when i suggested BGas were double billing. That is why I'm a little confused by it and would like to be able to trace the 3 payments. Or get a better understanding as to whether it is possible that a payment went astray but still topped up the meter.

ON moving into a property, i immediately signed up to switch to octopus. Because of communication issues with octopus, i wasn't informed that i had changed suppliers. The day the change came i was in debit. I topped up. 3 payments were made as i wasn't familiar with emergency credit and hadn't realised the situation. Funds were then kept by octopus and they denied receiving one of the payments. British GAs have since billed me for the standing charge. How i see this is that i have been billed twice. Once on the meter and once in paper. Octopus have taken the funds for the meter's billing of the standing charge and Bgas still claim i owe the paper bill. Is my impression that i have been double billed correct? Should suppliers discuss matters between them if they are aware of an issue? All 3 Payments, to get me out of the emergency, were made within an hour but in cash at a local shop via payzone. The key was a British gas key. How did payzone know to send it to octopus or is there a further intermediary? Can payzone trace history via the key or meter ID? Not huge amounts just a matter of principle.

Dragged out of my naïve ignorance, i'm quite stumped by that. So what is the point of T&C's and when do they hold any weight?

Halfords price match details can be found here and i feel, given my experience on how they practice the T&C these claims are massively misleading: Price Match | Halfords UK WWW.HALFORDS.COM Their reply to CS agent was: They claim T&C specify a requirement that the competing store must be within a 10 mile radius of "the" price matching store. The T&C in question state: N.B. I can confirm the T&C are written with both a comma and an OR separating what appears to be two conditions. What are your thoughts on this? I understand "the meaning of "a halfords store" to be signifcantly different to "the halford store" the first being any old halfords store, and the second more specific possibly referring to the price matching store. I also read that it is one condition OR the other ie either a ) home deliver OR b) collection within 10 miles. Would you agree? They also make a bold claim that they can not be beaten on price. It feels awfully misleading. Note all their other conditions are met.