@eonhelp Unhappy with Energy Ombudsman suggestions - should I take E.ON to court?

[jander]

Ombudsman has responded

 

Thank you for your patience while we considered your representations to the investigation.

 

Whilst we appreciate that you believe E.ON has breached its contract, we have found no evidence to confirm this. We have acknowledged in our initial findings that it could have made it clearer to you about a change to a term in the tariff. However, it should be noted that we do not consider the change to the term in your tariff to have had any impact to your account.

 

You did not ask E.ON whether you could continue to use your tariff at the new address. Therefore, you would have been put on the deemed contract regardless. The terms and conditions of your tariff did state to contact E.ON to enquire if you can continue a tariff at a new address. It also did not provide any guarantee that you could continue the tariff at a new address.

 

As we have explained to you already, you did have the opportunity to switch suppliers when you moved into your new address. Therefore, there is no justification in applying any further goodwill gesture to cover the difference between the tariff you are currently on and the tariff you were on at your old address.

 

You have also raised new concerns and points relating to deemed contracts. However, deemed contracts are accepted in this industry. We do consider that deemed contracts are suitable for the majority of customers because a supply is ready for them straight away when they move into a new address.

 

Whilst we acknowledge your point about the rates of deemed contracts, it should be noted that it is the customers responsibility to agree and arrange a new tariff. You did have the opportunity to do this prior to moving into your new address.

 

We have proposed a goodwill gesture of £30 for the shortfalls in customer service. We do consider this a fair and reasonable resolution for your complaint. We consider this to put you back in the position you would have been if the shortfalls in customer service did not occur.

 

We have now reached the end of our investigation process and there is no opportunity to appeal. You now have to decide if you agree to accept our decision in full and final settlement of the dispute.

 

 

The decision is that E.ON is required to take the following action to resolve your complaint:

 

• it should send you a letter of apology;

• credit your account with a goodwill gesture of £30; and

• ensure that you are on the most suitable tariff for your circumstances going forwards.

If you agree, I will contact E.ON and confirm that you accept this in full and final settlement of the complaint.

 

E.ON will have up to 28 days in which to implement the remedy.

 

If you do not accept this decision, or fail to respond, the decision will not be binding on E.ON. You will still be free to follow other routes to try to sort out the problems in a way that suits you better, but you will lose the right to the remedy set out above.

Please contact me using the details below to indicate your decision. You must confirm your response no later than 14 days from the date of this letter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gareth Pierce

 

Investigation Officer

[BankFodder]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread although I haven't been following it very closely.

 

Earlier on you said that you were out of pocket to the tune of £243. Was this extrapolated for one years use? Or is this what you are actually out of pocket?

 

I think that Gareth Pierce's decision is wrong and I think that his reasoning is very flawed.

 

Apart from anything else, you can see that he is taking the industry corner when he says "eemed contracts are accepted in this industry".

 

All this confirms is that the industry have a way of doing things and that there is no reference to any participation by the customer and that is completely unilateral.

 

To my mind this is completely at odds with the supply of goods and services act and even at odds with the common law if you had to go there.

 

It cannot possibly be that a party can unilaterally impose a non-negotiated tariff on the other without some kind of agreement. In this case, because this is the existing supplier, you don't even have the opportunity to refuse the supply. You have to go along with it for at least the period of time that it takes you to move away.

 

You may have said this in the thread somewhere, but maybe you will be kind enough to tell us again: did you move away from the supplier or get a better tariff as soon as you could? Or did you stay with the deemed contract for longer than was necessary?

 

The reason I am asking this is because you have a duty to mitigate your losses and it would only be reasonable for you to be able to claim for the extra money you paid over the minimum – compulsory – period of the "deemed contract".

 

It would be great news for everybody to smash a blow against deemed contracts. They are disgracefully unfair. I'm quite sure that they are unenforceable but of course nobody wants to go ahead and do it.

 

So can you tell us a bit more about your losses. Why did the deemed contract go on so long?

[jander]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread although I haven't been following it very closely.

 

Earlier on you said that you were out of pocket to the tune of £243. Was this extrapolated for one years use? Or is this what you are actually out of pocket?

Extrapolated for a year

 

I think that Gareth Pierce's decision is wrong and I think that his reasoning is very flawed.

 

Apart from anything else, you can see that he is taking the industry corner when he says "eemed contracts are accepted in this industry".

 

All this confirms is that the industry have a way of doing things and that there is no reference to any participation by the customer and that is completely unilateral.

 

To my mind this is completely at odds with the supply of goods and services act and even at odds with the common law if you had to go there.

 

It cannot possibly be that a party can unilaterally impose a non-negotiated tariff on the other without some kind of agreement. In this case, because this is the existing supplier, you don't even have the opportunity to refuse the supply. You have to go along with it for at least the period of time that it takes you to move away.

 

You may have said this in the thread somewhere, but maybe you will be kind enough to tell us again: did you move away from the supplier or get a better tariff as soon as you could? Or did you stay with the deemed contract for longer than was necessary?

 

The reason I am asking this is because you have a duty to mitigate your losses and it would only be reasonable for you to be able to claim for the extra money you paid over the minimum – compulsory – period of the "deemed contract".

 

It would be great news for everybody to smash a blow against deemed contracts. They are disgracefully unfair. I'm quite sure that they are unenforceable but of course nobody wants to go ahead and do it.

 

So can you tell us a bit more about your losses. Why did the deemed contract go on so long?

 

It went on right up until I received my first bill (online). After that, I immediately switched to their cheapest tariff. The reason I wasn't able to move away from E.On is because of an outstanding balance. At this point I'm going to be taking them to court over the _projected_ loses I expect to incur over the year.

[BankFodder]

So by how much were you actually out of pocket?

 

Why didn't you negotiate a contract earlier?

[jander]

So by how much were you actually out of pocket?

 

Why didn't you negotiate a contract earlier?

 

Around the £40 mark, but that's not what I'm aiming for, it's the yearly extrapolation I'm going to challenge them with. Negotiate a contract, how?

[BankFodder]

Well if you are actually only out of pocket by £40, then you won't be able to sue them for £243.

 

Why didn't you organise an agreed tariff as soon as you could?

[jander]

Well if you are actually only out of pocket by £40, then you won't be able to sue them for £243.

 

Why didn't you organise an agreed tariff as soon as you could?

 

I didn't organise one, because their Moving Home department never said I wasn't going to carry my old one to the new address. However I disagree with you. By the end of the year I will actually be £243 out of pocket in comparison to the contract I would have been on, had I not moved home.

[BankFodder]

If you sue, - and I think that you have a good chance of success, the court will only award you damages for your actual loss.

What is that now? If it is £40 then I am missing something because I don't understand why despite this dispute, you haven't now agreed a new tariff with them.

My understanding at the moment is that you are still paying their imposed rated for a deemed contract.

[jander]

If you sue, - and I think that you have a good chance of success, the court will only award you damages for your actual loss.

What is that now? If it is £40 then I am missing something because I don't understand why despite this dispute, you haven't now agreed a new tariff with them.

My understanding at the moment is that you are still paying their imposed rated for a deemed contract.

 

I will do my best to dispel the confusion

 

I was 3 months into a 12 month contract at my old address, when I was forced to move

I called E.On's moving team and asked them to transfer my account to the new address

At no point was I informed that my old tariff would be closed

When my first bill arrived I realised I was on the standard tariff

I called to ask what had happened, and I was told I cannot be put on my old tariff

As a last resort, I switched to their cheapest tariff, which was still more expensive than the one I was on when I moved

 

The point here is. E.On, while perfectly capable of transferring my tariff has refused to do so. Had I wanted to leave the contract early I would have been penalised, but it's alright for E.On to terminate it early, and get away with it because the size of the outstanding balance means I cannot move?

[BankFodder]

I like very much the point that if you had left the contract early, you would have been penalised.

Are you sure that there is no provision for leaving a contract without penalty in the event that you move home?

[jander]

I like very much the point that if you had left the contract early, you would have been penalised.

Are you sure that there is no provision for leaving a contract without penalty in the event that you move home?

 

I don't know I'm afraid, I'd need to find E.On's T&C's

[BankFodder]

OK - see if you can find out. I think that it is a significant point. If there is a penalty then I think that you have a very strong argument. If there is no penalty then I think that it places you in difficulty. However, I think that it would be worth suing for the £40 ij order to challenge the deemed contract rules. That would be a huge achievement.