Energy Ombudsman Reviews 

Prompt efficient service which resulted in me obtaining an acceptable offer within days.
I got to speak to a people straight away rather than having to deal with some automated system.
I couldn't have been more pleased with the service.

Very professional and kept me informed throughout the process

The decision was unfair and leant in favour of the energy company, despite evidence. I tried to complain and ask them for a re-evaluation, but the staff, although helpful on the surface, made that process difficult and discouraged me at every step.

I eventually gave in because I didn't need the hassle. This is not the service I was expecting.

I'm left significantly out of pocket and annoyed and the 'Ombudsman' will do nothing to help other customers caught in the trap I got caught in.

I referred a complex smart-meter and billing dispute with Octopus Energy to the Energy Ombudsman because I believed an independent review would require both parties to substantiate their positions. Unfortunately, that was not my experience.

The Ombudsman accepted that:

- My smart meter had a recognised defect.
- Octopus could not provide the original and corrected half-hourly consumption data.
- I was charged approximately £596–£650 more on Flexible Octopus than I would likely have paid on my chosen Octopus Go tariff.
- Octopus repeatedly changed its explanations for credits of £300 and £349.48.
- Octopus’s complaint handling fell below an acceptable standard.

Despite this, the Ombudsman decided that no further billing correction was required.

The decision relied on a contractual provision allegedly allowing Octopus to use Flexible pricing when half-hourly data was unavailable. However, neither Octopus nor the Ombudsman produced the exact historical terms applying during the disputed period or evidence showing:

- Which half-hourly readings were unavailable.
- Why they could not be estimated.
- What attempts were made to recover or estimate them.
- Why Flexible pricing was applied for around 15 months.
- Why I was not warned that my Go overnight pricing had stopped.

I continued charging my electric vehicle overnight because I reasonably believed I remained on Octopus Go. Had Octopus told me otherwise, I could have changed tariff, supplier or charging behaviour.

The Ombudsman also accepted a £349.48 back-billing write-off without Octopus providing the dates, kWh, rates, standing charges or VAT used to calculate it. My challenge concerning Octopus’s unexplained 1.8 meter-correction factor—when the readings appeared consistent with duplicated half-hourly consumption—was not addressed in the final determination.

The most frustrating aspect was that Octopus controlled the records needed to verify its calculations. However, rather than requiring Octopus to produce them, the absence of those records was effectively used against me because I could not conclusively prove its figures were wrong.

My appeal was then repeatedly characterised as simply “disagreement with the outcome,” despite identifying specific missing evidence, contradictory explanations and unsupported findings.

The final remedy was a £300 credit and an apology for poor service. However, Octopus had previously described that same £300 as a tariff correction rather than compensation, another contradiction that was acknowledged but dismissed as immaterial.

I understand that an Ombudsman is not a court and does not punish companies. Nevertheless, I expected an impartial evidence-based investigation. Instead, supplier assertions were accepted on the balance of probabilities without the underlying data or calculations required to verify them.

The process left me feeling that a consumer is expected to disprove a supplier’s figures while the supplier is not required to produce the records supporting them. I spent a considerable amount of time assembling detailed bills, calculations and correspondence, only for the central questions to remain unanswered.

My issue was not the amount that was being offered as compensation, it was that nothing was verified, proved or explained properly. I thought the Ombudsman was there to investigate properly but it seems that Octopus have their own rules and do not have to provide proof or calculations for anything. They even told me after i had been telling them that my meter was faulty that i would not be charged anymore which i sent to the ombudsman for them to then over charge me by £600. But get told that it is pretty much tough luck.

A deeply disappointing and disgusting experience that has seriously undermined my confidence in the Energy Ombudsman.

The Energy Ombudsman found in my favour in a dispute with my energy supplier (Utilita) over bogus charges for the installation of a smart meter (it should have been free of charge).

The Ombudsman's judgement removed the bogus charges from my account, gave me a 100 pound award for my trouble and ordered Utilita to write me a letter of apology.

The lady who dealt with my case was lovely. She explained the process to me clearly and followed up with me after the judgement.

They handled my energy complaint effectively and kept me updated. The website could be more user-friendly, as it was a bit confusing at times.

Im grateful for the help in place and even though I struggle with tech etc , this process was rather easy , so I'm happy , Thankyou

The Ombudsman is paid by the suppliers and so very often their decisions are in favour of their paymasters . Just a small amount of consideration and allowance of a totally understandable lack of the rules covering BUSINESS ENERGY would have resulted in a much fairer result for the customer, and wouldn't have cost the offending company a single penny. C'est la Vie.

An overwhelming experience. The ombudsman and SSE spoke in industry language, and would not place, or directly speak in plain English and made the whole scenario and process very difficult to be part of and understand.
Ombudsman is not enforcing SSE to carry out the agreed outcome, and has left me, the consumer, to do the leg work, but of course SSE will not, as they are not being directed by the ombudsman, even though that was the final outcome.
The only one that loses out are consumers.

I have had an excellent experience with Case Handler Daniel Jamieson! He was just fantastic to speak to, very understanding of my complaint and explained everything clearly and was happy to answer any questions that I had. I have full confidence that my claim will be handled fairl.

When the person reviews their own decision you’re challenging how is that fair or independent, one of the remedies ordered wasn't implemented yet case closed as resolved?

I think it should place MUCH more weight on evidence and much less on who is giving 'evidence' or telling the Ombudsman what he has to agree to think.

I had a problem with my energy supplier, who were asking me to pay for gas I had already paid for. I contacted the ombudsman who listened to my complaint, examined my evidence and talked me through the process. End result, I was reimbursed for my overpayment and compensated for the awful customer service I received. Highly recommend this service if you find yourself in a dispute with your energy provider.

Simple and easy to submit information. No fuss, no hassle and most importantly,fair.

From the moment I contacted them everything about the procedure was fully explained and any progress was brought to my attention. I felt I was at the right place and for what I had struggled with for a year was fully solved in 2 months. Not only did I get what I had wanted but they also achieved a payment that I had been told I would never get from the company.

An exhausting, stressful and deeply disappointing experience. The case handling was simply unacceptable - request another case handler if you get lumped with Paul Darlington.
I approached the Energy Ombudsman in good faith, believing it was there to help consumers, listen to their concerns and provide a fair, impartial resolution when things go wrong with an energy company. Unfortunately, my experience has been the complete opposite.
Having spent hours upon hours gathering information, providing evidence and explaining my situation, I was left feeling ignored, dismissed and completely let down. My specific questions and concerns were not properly answered, important points were seemingly overlooked, and the standard of customer service I received from my case handler, Paul Darlington, was appalling, even when I had disputed the initial offer.
I expect a case handler to listen, understand the issues being raised, address legitimate questions and approach a case with professionalism, patience and impartiality. Instead, I experienced what felt like a dismissive attitude, a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to properly engage with the points I was making, simple questions could not be answered purely out of laziness.
What made matters worse was my belief that a mistake had been made in the handling of my case. Rather than properly engaging with my concerns and reconsidering the position, I felt my objections were dismissed. I also requested that my case be transferred to another case handler, but this was refused. There appeared to be little willingness to step back, examine the situation objectively or acknowledge that something may have gone wrong.
A case handler should be there to investigate a complaint, not make a consumer feel as though they are a nuisance for questioning the way their case has been handled.
The handling of my case left me questioning how someone with such a dismissive approach can effectively fulfil a role that requires listening to people, understanding complex situations and helping resolve disputes. When someone has already been through the stress of an energy-related complaint, the last thing they need is to feel they must fight just to have their concerns properly heard.
And what was the end result of all this time, effort and stress? £300 in compensation. A JOKE!

To be clear, my frustration is not simply about the amount of compensation awarded. It is about the apparent lack of proper investigation, the unanswered questions, the points I felt were overlooked and the overall impression that my case had not been dealt with as thoroughly or fairly as it should have been. Had my concerns been properly investigated and addressed, I believe it would have been clear why £300 felt wholly inadequate in the circumstances. Instead, I was left feeling that the outcome failed to reflect the seriousness of the issues I had raised.

The entire process left me more stressed, emotionally drained and frustrated than when I started. I invested an enormous amount of time and energy because I genuinely believed the Energy Ombudsman was the right organisation to turn to for assistance. That trust was misplaced.

My experience raises serious questions about accountability, the quality of case handling and whether consumers are genuinely being listened to. What is the point of asking people to submit evidence and explain their circumstances if their questions remain unanswered and they are left feeling that their concerns have been brushed aside?

The Energy Ombudsman should be a source of support and fair resolution. In my experience, it became another obstacle to overcome.

I expected professionalism, a thorough investigation, clear answers and a fair assessment. Instead, I experienced poor communication, dismissive treatment, a refusal to transfer my case when I had lost confidence in its handling, and an outcome that left me profoundly dissatisfied.

I would strongly encourage anyone considering using the Energy Ombudsman to go in with realistic expectations and to keep detailed records of every interaction, every question asked and every answer received.
Consumers approaching an organisation like this deserve to be treated with respect, to have their concerns properly considered and to receive reasoned answers, even when those concerns challenge a case handler's conclusions.

I went to the Energy Ombudsman looking for help and a fair resolution. I came away feeling ignored, dismissed, exhausted and let down. That is not what a consumer dispute resolution service should look like.

We found the service very easy to use. Our case handler was helpful, explained the process clearly and answered all our questions. Once the case was raised with British Gas, a resolution was offered very quickly. Having previously been unable to get British Gas to correct their mistake, we were very pleased to finally achieve a satisfactory outcome.

This is the second time I've used the Energy Ombudsman with my supplier and on both occasions my experience has been excellent. My case handler has taken the time to a read and understand the evidence and information provided. Where my supplier attempted to obfuscate the issues by claiming they had done certain things, without providing any evidence, this was quickly picked up.
The Ombudsmans review and decision was so detailed, precise and evidence based, that it highlighted not only the errors made by my supplier bot also their appalling approach to customer service.

The problem I had with British Gas was dealt very good by the Ombudsman and is the second time I used them. The outcome was dealt with the compensation I received.

My case hasn't been resolved yet
But if you have a dispute with your energy provider. The ombudsman definitely listens and gives you confidence that they will be impartial yet honest, trustworthy and helpful.
9/10 overall rating