Thursday 18th July 2024
I have finally received the decision of the ombudsman for my long running dispute with British Gas.
It seems that only hard evidence is considered and subjective information is more or less ignored. They have accepted British Gas readings as inarguably correct. My own calculation of average daily usage over the last two yeas applied to the outstanding bill showing a difference of over £900 has been ignored. Although that shows an overwhelming disproportionate usage for a dwelling similar to mine I have not been able to identify any cause, either at my end or that of BG. So, my calculations I guess have been seen as speculative because I have not produced any hard evidence.
My 8 point complaint included examples of dreadful service from BG for over a year and it would seem that has been marginally considered but only resulting in a goodwill award of £200.
To sum up my feelings see below a copy of my reply to Gimmer in a previous post"
Gimmer -It is the electricity not the gas that is in dispute. I have mow received the ombudsman's decision and it is less than satisfactory only giving me a goodwill payment of £200.00. I can still have the "independent" meter test which I will have to pay for, but it will satisfy my mind that the possibility of malfunction there can be eliminated*, and if it exists, not allowed to continue ad infinitum. I can't emphasise enough how much this has taken out of me. There are avenues for appeal but I have mo motivation whatsoever to continue with this health sapping saga. My overall motivation is to make this into history. I now intend to accept the decision and move on. Financially, the funds have been saved along the way so that is not a worry.
As I said in a previous comment :
"I am beginning to understand why some of the postmasters ended up unnecessarily pleading guilty."
There comes a point where one just runs out of steam.
*Of course, if there is a malfunction BG will have to make amends.
***************************************
On a brighter note, Chocolate Guiness Cake was "on" at Café Ambio today.
Sorry Mick and Gayle that you missed it on your visit.
I confess to being jealous (of the cake; not the BG situation). I feel decidedly under-caked this week, and that looks to be just what I need to bring the cake consumption up to acceptable levels.
ReplyDeleteHopefully if the worst comes to the worst, the £200 will cover for the meter check, but I very much hope that BG end up footing that bill.
This is a sorry state of affairs...although the cake looks rather good!
ReplyDeleteAfter years of problems in dealing with British Gas, two years ago I cancelled my accounts with them: 3 maintenance contracts, 2 gas accounts and 2 electricity accounts.
Gayle - I'm sure you do need some cake after that thrash detailed on your last post.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------
JJ - I will be changing supplier as soon as it is appropriate. On my current tariff (Price Promise) there is a £75 exit fee on both gas and electricity if one opts out before the contract term. Another little example of BG keeping customers happy?
whether gas or electricity, the issue is the same - presumably you have the actual meter readings for the relevant dates and periods and have compared these and analysed (if any) the differences between yours and the ones used by BG in their calculations. From this, it should be clear whether it appears there might be (or rather more difficult, a transient) a malfunction in the meter or 'in the computer' or a secret user siphoning off your power. These things are so simple that it will only take a £100M inquiry to fail to find the culprit.
ReplyDeleteGimmer - Thanks for your input. I have now accepted the ombudsman's decision and will be settling up the aftermath with BG in the next few days. I will also arrange to have the meter tested. If it is faulty it would be folly to let that continue ad infinitum and if it is, BG would have to compensate. The main thing as far as I and my health are concerned is to have all this consigned to history .
ReplyDeleteThis comment was made by "gimmer" but there was a technical problem in posting, so I have stepped in. Sir Hugh
ReplyDelete.As many have e commented, it is quite ridiculous that this type of the automatic "I'm right and you are wrong" attitude should persist in the 21st century, when there are plenty of ways of checking systems almost instantly, and yet the old bullying tactic persists - none seem to have any understanding of how to deal with customer relations or problems - it is not just nationalised /state organisations, though: it appears in airlines, telecoms, retail - although we all know that in reality, the customer is not 'always right' and there are an increasing number who live to exploit suppliers and providers, to assume as a first reaction that all do is both costly and counterproductive. As many have observed, the Post Office has seized the ignoble crown in this competition, and as with others, will bear the ultimate cost - except, of course, in their case, we all will, as with other 'public sector' scandals.
Privatising them is alone not enough - so often this simply means the old bad habits, fiddles and sclerotic policies are simply passed on unreformed to continue to infect new employees. I think a new Northcote and a new Trevelyan are required for the 21st century .
General and in reply to Gimmer.
ReplyDeleteI was not aware of The Northcote Trevelyan Report that Gimmer refers to. Here is an extract from Wikipedia that outlines its substance,
"The Northcote-Trevelyan Report was a document prepared by Stafford H. Northcote (later to be Chancellor of the Exchequer) and C.E. Trevelyan (then Permanent Secretary at the Treasury) about the British Civil Service. Commissioned in 1853 and published in February 1854, the report catalysed the development of Her Majesty's Civil Service in the United Kingdom. Influenced by the Chinese Imperial Examinations, it recommended that entry to the Civil Service be solely on merit, to be enforced through the use of examinations. Its formal title was "Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service, Together with a Letter from the Rev. B. Jowett."
"The report is generally regarded as the founding document of the British Civil Service, enshrining the service with the "core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next".[1] Recognising that, at the time, public administration was suffering “both in internal efficiency and in public estimation", it formed the basis for the principle of an impartial Civil Service.”
That rang a bell for me with its reference to getting properly qualified people for important posts rather than relying on cronyism and nepotism. I have been addicted to watching a lot of the Post Office Enquiry on-line within the last few days. One of the few people in Government who heeded the warning bells and tried to do something about it was Baroness Neville-Rolfe a Minister of State who amongst many other responsibilities had an “at arms length” involvement with the Post Office scandal leading up to the enquiry. She was continually fobbed off time and time again by the overseeing Government board of directors established to oversee the Government’s ownership of the Post Office, and similarly by the Post Office themselves. Her evidence under the penetrating and highly organised lead QC for the enquiry, Jason Beer, is fascinating. At the end she was asked what she would suggest for the governance of Government owned entities. Amongst other suggestions she stressed the importance of getting the most able members from Government and Industry with relevant experience to sit on these boards. There is a fascinating exchange between the wise chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, and the Baroness that explores that requirement. Here is the link. You need to fast forward to about 1hr. 12 mins. right at the end to catch this unless, like me you become addicted and want to watch hours and hours of this, to me, absorbing insight into the workings of the many agencies involved in this massive undertaking.
Day 169 of the enquiry - PM not AM
https://youtu.be/abfjXoZdIiI