Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

wrong billing


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5331 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Noticed in May that we have been billed the wrong way round,the night reading was put as day reading and the day reading as night reading so it seemed we used our electricity through the night and barely anything through the day, hence an extra bill for over £200.

We argue that it's meter readers fault as hand held meter keyed in incorrectly.

We have also been on wrong tariff for 14 years, been on economy 7 which is for night storage heaters when we have radiators.

We had our meter changed last September and since then the bills had been incorrect due to agents having hand held meters keyed in wrongly which supplier has admitted.

They have offered to put correct tariff back to last Sept when meter was changed and to half the bill remaining but we feel we should not have a bill to pay as they have agreed their agent had hand held metres keyed in wrongly.

We are on money management programme and do not have the money to pay this half bill which is not our fault.

Anyone else had this prob????

Does anyone know of the rights of the supplier or the rights of the consumer???

Also they have put bill to Energy Collection Services.

Edited by mummam
felt i had not explained enough
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the wrong tariff, you are lucky that they will amend back to September. They wont know how you heat your proerty unless you tell them. Some people have gas heating but still use their E7 at night ie washing, tumble dryer, dishwasher etc. With regards to the readings being transposed, that should be backdated right to the very first time the meter was misread!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been transposed to the 1st misreading!

My argument is that it's theirs and agents faults that held meter readers were wrong and that they should not be allowed to put people into debt when they are struggling already ie £100+ more going out than coming in each month so where do we get money to pay even half the bill?

Why should we pay a debt that supplier put us in???:x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mustn't be making myself clear!!!

They have transposed the bill to last Sept and it came to £210, then they took the tariff we should be on back to Sept too that brought bill to £130 and they said for goodwill they would halve that leaving us £65 to pay but we have not got £65, heard of blood out of a stone?

The debt is not our fault they should write off the other £65.

The agent had the meters keyed in wrongly and they've admitted that, god knows what kind of bill we'd face if I hadn't noticed this in a year or so!!!

How many other people is this happening to or are they all just letting supplier/agent get away with this by paying the debt the supplier/agent has put them in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The E7 tariff you were on they will do little about, as I have already explained, just make sure you are not on that tariff now. The transposed read MUST be backdated right back to the first day they started to bill you incorrectly. They then need to reverse all the readings from the first day and cancel every bill they have sent you between then and now.

 

The agent may not have been reading them wrong, it could be the supplier had them on their system the wrong way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The agent may not have been reading them wrong, it could be the supplier had them on their system the wrong way round."

 

This is quite possible. Meter readers today generally use a hand held computer on which the figures are recorded. If the figures are outside certain parameters the hand held will not accept the reading and the reader would need to enter the correct reading. So, unless your "day" and "night" readings are very similar (which I doubt) it is unlikely they could be recorded incorrectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add that meter readers are not told the previous readings either on their machine and often the Day and Nights are not marked on the machine so it can be impossible to know which way round to put the readings on the machine.

Even if the meter-reader has input the readings correctly, this does not guarantee the supplier actually using the readings unfortunately. I have often had people compaining that I or a colleague come to read the meter and then the supplier doesn't use the readings (estimating them instead). This seems to happen to the same customers time after time, most people are not affected by it.

 

However, it soulnd to me like the supplier have done all they can to sort out the problem once they realised the problem existed. You do have to pay something you know Mummam, if you use the electric. Just because the supplier has made a mistake, you can't expect them to charge you absolutely nothing. That is what you are asking for as far as I can make out, although ithe post does not lay the situation out very clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the original post, the error was in the poster's favour. The OP does not have electric heating, yet the supplier was billing most of the units used on the night rate, ie: the cheap price. On reflection, the OP may have a point as the suopplier are trying to bill some of the units used now once they have realised the mistake after they have already billing the OP (albeit the wrong way round). If it was the supplier's (or their agents) fault (which it undoubtably was) then they should be cutting their losses, shouldn;t they?

I'm sorry mummam for jumping the gun in the previous post. You told the supplier that the bills were wrong even when the m,istake was in your favour. You shouldn't be penalised for your honesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mummam, are you still on E7 tariff. If you are, I think you should ask to go on the supplier's single rate tarifff as it does not appear you are using enough electric in the night time to make the E7 tariff pay. I think from your earlier posts, you may have already arranged thius but I'm not quite sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right there Mattlamb, the supplier assumed the op was using most of their electric at night, hence getting the lowest rate possible. If it was billed correctly the bill would have been far higher, I misread the original post. Then can only assume the op has the issue with regard to their tariff which the supplier should have now amended to single rate tariff, but the supplier does not have to backdate that tariff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as I stated earlier in post#2 you should consider complaining to the Energy Ombudsman.

 

 

complaining about what? Being undercharged as that is the case if they are being charged as though they use most of their electricity on the night rate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...