Energy Ombudsman
View company profile →
The Energy Ombudsman sided with the…
The Energy Ombudsman sided with the Energy company. My smart meter hadn’t been providing dual readings for my electricity. After many attempts to get Octopus to fix the issue, they said it was a signal issue and all of the off peak EV charging and home use off peak was charged at full peak rate, costing me hundreds of pounds. No notice was given whatsoever that the money would be taken immediately from my account. Almost £2000. The Ombudsman decided that Octopus had done what it could and it was ‘written into their terms and conditions’ that this could happen. I am not disputing this but at the same time, why, exactly, is it me, as the consumer, that is financially impacted when I had zero control over the signal? Octopus have the relationship with the Smart DCC and it is up to them to manage their supplier such that a signal I used to have (until April) is restored. Clearly in this case, Octupus’s ineffectiveness to get a resolution has gained them additional revenue, at my expense. Meanwhile the Energy Ombudsman thinks this is OK. Not really a consumer champion, or an upholder of Treating Customers Fairly now, is it? The Energy Ombudsman is paid for by Octopus and other energy companies as required by Ofgem, the government regulator. You can make your own assessment if this is likely to result in the level of impartiality I believe consumers should be afforded.