Electricity Bill €5000!!!

billybonkers

ESB are not a provider...

Is it electric Ireland? If so give them a call and tell them you want to drop into them to discuss the bill and why it is so high.

As previous posters have suggested the issue seems to be ith a correction mad e to the readings.

"Correction of previous reading (s) 02/08/14 to 07/11/16 3768.22"

I would seem that your only ACTUAL read was on the 7th of November 2016. Your current bill has been updated to reflect this ACTUAL reading that they received.

3768 units divided by 25 months since the ORIGINAL ACTUAL reading on the 2nd August 2014 = 150 units per month.

They could have undercharged you on previous bills by 150 units a month and now that they have an ACTUAL read from the meter have corrected.

You need to speak with them and ask when was the LAST ACTUAL READ before the 7th November 2016.

they will talk you through the rest!

kid6

The readings were drastically underestimated.

What has happened was the customer received a bill of somewhere between 40,000 and 45,000 units in November. The reader has got an accurate reading in January which was 68451. The ESB system went back over the past 28 months and reestimated all the figures bringing them in line with the read got in January. The estimation the op has provided for November of 65734 is really a reestimation of an estimated bill.


Based on the figures and time frame the op has provided I'm 100% sure they were charged for an estimated bill of between 40000 and 45000 in November.
If you contact the supplier or ESB and ask for the reads before the re estimation they will provide them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kid6 wrote: »

The readings were drastically underestimated.

What has happened was the customer received a bill of somewhere between 40,000 and 45,000 units in November. The reader has got an accurate reading in January which was 68451. The ESB system went back over the past 28 months and reestimated all the figures bringing them in line with the read got in January. The estimation the op has provided for November of 65734 is really a reestimation of an estimated bill.


Based on the figures and time frame the op has provided I'm 100% sure they were charged for an estimated bill of between 40000 and 45000 in November.
If you contact the supplier or ESB and ask for the reads before the re estimation they will provide them.

This is not correct. If underestimated the actual reading would have shown the additional units and, from what the OP has shown, it clearly did not.

Ghekko

OP if you pay by direct debit cancel it asap online or by calling your bank, until you sort out this issue. From the estimate to actual readings in your first post there is no way the bill could be so high.

L1011

Ghekko wrote: »

OP if you pay by direct debit cancel it asap online or by calling your bank, until you sort out this issue. From the estimate to actual readings in your first post there is no way the bill could be so high.

There very much is - we have readings from November; the correction runs back to 2014.

ArthurG

alig123aileen wrote: »

I'm a Data Protection Manager!

In which case I'm sure you're even more familiar than I am with the specifics of the GDPR, which as far as I'm aware doesn't classify utility usage data as PII.

kid6

billybonkers wrote:

They could have undercharged you on previous bills by 150 units a month and now that they have an ACTUAL read from the meter have corrected.

Laney Shallow Spark wrote:

This is not correct. If underestimated the actual reading would have shown the additional units and, from what the OP has shown, it clearly did not.

Laney Shallow Spark wrote:

This is not correct. If underestimated the actual reading would have shown the additional units and, from what the OP has shown, it clearly did not.

Sorry I forgot to include why the bill will be wrong.  When the reading goes through the ESB system all previous estimates will reestimate to bring everything in line.  The ESB will then send this read across to the supplier.  The supplier will then bill and provide the current and past usage based on these new reestimated reads.  This is why the reads the op has provided are in line

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kid6 wrote: »

Sorry I forgot to include why the bill will be wrong.  When the reading goes through the ESB system all previous estimates will reestimate to bring everything in line.  The ESB will then send this read across to the supplier.  The supplier will then bill and provide the current and past usage based on these new reestimated reads.  This is why the reads the op has provided are in line

I'm sorry, but that is not correct. The readings would show Prev. Reading E Xxx
Current Reading A. XXXXX, Usage YYYY. That is the rationale behind displaying readings previous and current. All previous estimated readings are maintained. They have to be, for transparency and accuracy of billing. There could be a separate adjustment to the charge for unit price increases or decreases during the estimated period but the readings must remain sacrosanct.

Ghekko

L1011 wrote: »

There very much is - we have readings from November; the correction runs back to 2014.

D'oh - only getting that now

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

alig123aileen wrote: »

I don't agree with previous posters re data protection not being relevant . data protection is very relevant here they have a duty of care to update and keep your personal data (usage) relevant. I have used this before (I'm a Data Protection Manager!) and companies move very quickly to put things right. Sending estimated bills for 1 year is not in line with data protection guidelines on keeping your data relevant and up to date. Especially with Government departments it always works. ESB are in essence a government organisation and so have to have an appointed Data Protection Officer in place.


.

There is no personal date at play here. The meter reading is not data protected. It is not personal data. In fact the metering details are the property of the ESB. They own the meter, not the customer.
I despair at this interpretation of Data Management legislation.

Cabaal

alig123aileen wrote: »

I don't agree with previous posters re data protection not being relevant . data protection is very relevant here they have a duty of care to update and keep your personal data (usage) relevant. I have used this before (I'm a Data Protection Manager!) and companies move very quickly to put things right. Sending estimated bills for 1 year is not in line with data protection guidelines on keeping your data relevant and up to date.

Oh dear,
so you're using "I know what I'm talking about" to put "fear" into front like customer service department. Even though you don't actually know what you are talking about.

Especially with Government departments it always works. ESB are in essence a government organisation and so have to have an appointed Data Protection Officer in place.

Just to check, you do know the difference between ESB Networks and Electric Ireland right? Most people don't and it appears you are no different here.

You can't fault ESB Networks when the customer won't allow them access or submit meter readings themselves like every bill recommends they do.

Remember that ESB Networks and Electric Ireland are different entity's and that Electric Ireland like other electricity company's do not send out meter readers. They do however bill for estimated or accurate usage. They are very much entitled to bill a customer for usage.

The responsibility here is on the customer to ensure they allow ESB Networks access to the meter or if they are not doing this then they should follow every single bill's advice to submit meter readings to ensure accurate billing. All electric providers really push this to prevent customer's from experiencing bill shock when they do what the OP has done and just gone with estimated readings for months on end (a seriously bad idea!).

So, since you appear confused between the two, who is your "data protection" complaint against? ESB Networks or the actual electric supplier who bills the customer?

Senna

Is it possible that the OP was in one of the level pay billing agreements and it was possibly based on 2013 usage which may have been a lot less.
Of course it does not explain the issues, but might explain how the OP was just paying 150, set amount, every two months.
I assume with level pay, you get a bill at the end of your contract if the amount you paid during the year was less than actual usage?

L1011

Senna wrote: »

I assume with level pay, you get a bill at the end of your contract if the amount you paid during the year was less than actual usage?

Yes, and a refund if not.

kid6

Laney Shallow Spark wrote:

There is no personal date at play here. The meter reading is not data protected. It is not personal data. In fact the metering details are the property of the ESB. They own the meter, not the customer. I despair at this interpretation of Data Management legislation.

The ESB system will accept the new read but will also reestimate the previous 28 months readings. This data is picked up by the supplier and issued as the reads. To maintain accuracy you simply can't put in the current read and not reestimate the previous ones.

I have a bill from electric Ireland that shows no past or current usage for four months. It really is not uncommon for the suppliers to send out incorrect information like that.

Cdosrun

What ever way it works out the OP owes at least €3138.
That's taking into account standing order and PSO levy for 28 months.

This has thought me something.....I pay over €16 a month just to have electric before even using it.

Gooser14

How do make that out. He paid his bills for the 28 months albeit on estimation of units used.

Cdosrun

The thing is if the meter is inside you can check it against your bill.
If it says 006253 and your meter says otherwise you know the difference.
Mine is way out and my bill says I am €100 + in credit but best to keep on top of thinks like that while I owe them some.

Cdosrun

Gooser14 wrote: »

How do make that out. He paid his bills for the 28 months albeit on estimated of units used.

Their usage in the last was estimated so after a reading.
It was for 11 days. That was still high as it it adds up to over a fiver a day. mad.
Take the the usage for those days and divide 11 and I guess you know where I'm going here but I took into accout that PSO changed in 01/10/2016

AndrewJRenko

ArthurG wrote: »

In which case I'm sure you're even more familiar than I am with the specifics of the GDPR, which as far as I'm aware doesn't classify utility usage data as PII.

Does each category of data HAVE to be classified by the GDPR to be PII?

Paullimerick

So did you sort the bill????

cbreeze

re Meter 'readers'
I was standing in my hall a few weeks ago and a man came to the door and was pushing something in the letter box. I opened the door and took the paper at the same time. Lo and behold, it was a meter reader who had not knocked at the door but assumed there was no one in. He was invited in to take a correct reading. I think the readers are now contracted out and want to get their shifts over as quickly as possible.

lucernarian

As it turns out, I know of a situation where a similar corrected bill has been received. The bill is in the landlord's name and the last reading was some (over 4) years ago.

People have moved in and out since then - who is liable and for what?? The previous bills were paid successfully - pretty sure the tenants won't manage over 5000... I think the rental agreement stipulates that the electricity charges be paid based on the bill, but I haven't been told specifically.

L1011

There's a level of responsibility in checking and submitting readings that the 4 years worth of tenants should have done but realistically the person left holding the parcel is stuck with it.

lucernarian

L1011 wrote: »

There's a level of responsibility in checking and submitting readings that the 4 years worth of tenants should have done but realistically the person left holding the parcel is stuck with it.

I'm trying to look through the residential tenancies act 2004 - there is no specific info relating to the payment of bills in section 12, just about additional costs to restore property to a standard that it was when the tenancy began, minus wear and tear. Or a default on rent (of course).

I suspect the person who told me the story knew of the issue before last week, but had only moved in a few months before and weren't inclined to trigger a massive electricity bill with very ambiguous liability involved and the ultimate threat of neither landlord or tenants paying, and the ESB cutting off supply. I can't be sure though.

I've advised him to go to a FLAC anyway...

L1011

I suspect its going to end up having to be paid mostly by the landlord - that's who I meant by holding the parcel. Should never have kept it in his name. Current tenants should have taken a reading, though.

Worst outcome would be a prepay meter that uses part of each topup towards the arrears as some incoming tenants have found a property burdened with!

They should be able to make a guess at their real usage from the actual read until now (or another week from now). It hasn't been a massively cold winter so usage should be relatively steady. Take in to account the fixed fees as well as the units.

Yourself isit

Laney Shallow Spark wrote: »

And can you explain the charges based on the readings??

When the ESB send one of these corrected readings they also "correct" the previous reading.

Fuzzy Clam

Yourself isit wrote:

When the ESB send one of these corrected readings they also "correct" the previous reading.

How can they correct a previous estimated reading?

Yourself isit

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

How can they correct a previous estimated reading?

They show a new estimate.

Let's say your previous estimated reading was 4100 units. Your actual reading is 5000 units. Now let's say they underestimated your bi-monthly units by 100 on average over a few months and it had been estimated at 200 units. They will now show the previous estimate as 4700.

So your unit costs will be 300 (their new estimate of your bi-monthly usage) and the rest will be 600 units charged as extra.

I spent a good hour on the phone arguing this.

infogiver

All rental properties now should have pre pay meters.
It dispenses with all this angst.
If landlords don't put in pre pay meters and get stuck with a big bill I've no sympathy for them.

Sarn

infogiver wrote: »

All rental properties now should have pre pay meters.
It dispenses with all this angst.
If landlords don't put in pre pay meters and get stuck with a big bill I've no sympathy for them.

I don't see the point in penalising the majority with over priced electricity for something that is easily avoidable. Taking a meter reading at the start of the tenancy and the submission of periodic readings would prevent this from occurring. I certainly wouldn't be interested in a rental where I am locked to a supplier and couldn't easily switch to avail of discounts.