Energy Ombudsman Reviews 

I have used the energy ombudsman complaint process twice to deal with two very difficult and complex issues with separate companies. Handler, Glenda Dodds has been incredibly helpful and proactive in having my issues resolved. Not only did she resolve my first complaint with Valda energy, she then allocated herself my complaint with a separate energy supplier as she knew she had an understanding of my situation already and wanted to see it through to the end.

Massively helpful and just the kind of customer service that we need more of today.

Huge thanks to you Glenda Dodds.

Just by referring my complaint to the Energy Ombudsman resulted in British Gas reinvestigating the poor service I had received and then make an appropriate offer of redress

Thank you to the Energy Ombudsman for listening to my concerns and helping me to resolve my complaint. I appreciate your support and assistance throughout the process.

The Energy Ombudsman upheld all three complaint issues against E.ON Next, but left E.ON’s existing £250 goodwill offer unchanged and awarded nothing for my £1,500 of evidenced lost savings interest. Obtaining an accurate explanation for that refusal required repeated challenges to explanations the Ombudsman subsequently corrected.

Before approaching the Ombudsman, I had already secured refunds exceeding £19,000 from E.ON following years of incorrect billing and excessive Direct Debit collections. E.ON had already offered £250 in goodwill. Having checked the Ombudsman’s published information about its ability to require financial compensation, I invested substantial time preparing a detailed complaint and supporting documentary evidence.

The Ombudsman upheld the billing, Direct Debit and customer-service complaints. It awarded a separate £80 for a delayed refund, which I acknowledge. However, it maintained the existing £250 goodwill offer and declined compensation for lost interest.

The original decision expressly relied on there being no evidence that the money would have been held in an interest-bearing account or generated a financial return.

I therefore spent several additional days assembling precisely that evidence: banking records, a detailed daily calculation and a six-page appeal. I replaced my original interest-rate proxy with a lower claim of £1,491.96, calculated using my actual savings products and historical rates.

I submitted the appeal on 11 September. On 15 September, an appeal allocation notification arrived at 13:06 and the appeal outcome notification at 13:41. Those notification times do not establish how long the review took. What concerned me was that the rejection simply recited the appeal criteria and said my application did not meet them, without explaining why the evidence failed to address the deficiency identified in the original decision.

The subsequent explanations from the Energy Ombudsman changed materially.

On 28 September, the Ombudsman stated: “Energy Ombudsman does not award interest under any circumstances.” It apologised for originally presenting the issue as an absence of evidence and acknowledged that this had led me to spend time assembling additional material.

I asked where that categorical exclusion appeared in its Terms of Reference or published policy.

After further correspondence, on 6 October the Ombudsman acknowledged that its Terms of Reference contained no such prohibition and that it had identified no separate published policy establishing one. Its earlier statement was too broad. The refusal was instead an exercise of discretion in my particular case.

These were materially different explanations: insufficient evidence; a categorical exclusion; then a discretionary refusal.

The Ombudsman also acknowledged that the appeal-allocation notification was confusing, the appeal rejection inadequately explained the threshold decision, and an earlier response had failed to answer my deadline request. It initially declined to treat my concerns as a service complaint, before accepting that separate communication failures had occurred.

Throughout this exchange, repeated references to “final” responses and deadline extensions left me feeling pressured to make an acceptance decision while still seeking an accurate explanation. Extensions were ultimately granted, but further correspondence had been necessary because the explanations themselves required correction.

The final response established that discretion existed. It still did not explain which particular facts or principles justified refusing compensation for the lost interest, or how my banking evidence informed that conclusion. Saying a remedy is not considered appropriate communicates an outcome; it does not explain the reasoning.

I eventually accepted the decision because I was unwilling to devote more time to the dispute. That should not be mistaken for satisfaction with the process.

The Ombudsman's published guidance should explain much more clearly, with examples, how evidenced financial losses are assessed and when compensation may be refused despite supplier failings being upheld. I would not have invested this amount of time had I understood what the process would deliver in my case.

Beyond the separate £80 award, I finished with the goodwill offer already available before referral, no compensation for my lost interest, and unanswered questions about the reasoning. Consumers should not have to pursue a complaint about the Ombudsman simply to establish whether its stated reason for refusing compensation is correct.

I feel the process is more daunting that it actually is. If you believe in your complaint and your supplier doesnt deal with it acceptably and honestly, then DEFINITELY use the Ombudsman. Make sure you have all your evidence clearly presented. You have nothing to loose.

The advantage of the ombudsman service is that the energy company has a unit to deal with the ombudsman so more chance of your complaint being sorted which mine was in a prompt manner once ombudsman was involved. Can’t fault process.

I am writing this review to warn others about my disappointing experience with the Energy Ombudsman. I have serious concerns about its independence, fairness and willingness to follow its own Terms of Reference.

My complaint against OVO Energy involved repeatedly ignored formal complaints, attempts to close unresolved cases without my agreement, threatening debt-collection communications, misleading information, disputed billing and a £15 late payment fee despite my requests to place the account on hold.

Despite submitting extensive evidence, including screenshots, emails, PDFs and OVO's own records and admissions, I believe significant evidence was overlooked.

My case handler, David Givens - 02033652958 , issued a decision awarding only £150 goodwill and a written apology, despite my underlying problems remaining unresolved.

I submitted a detailed appeal identifying factual errors, missing evidence and unanswered questions. I also requested an independent review by a different staff member or Coach. However, my challenge was rejected and closed without what I consider an adequate explanation of the individual factual errors raised.

This raises serious concerns about compliance with the Ombudsman's own Terms of Reference:

Section 9.9(a): Requires fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Section 9.9(b): Requires reasoned decisions based on fairness, good practice and proper administration.

Section 9.9(f): Requires reasons for conclusions and decisions.

Source: Energy Ombudsman – Terms of Reference.

I also raised concerns about OVO's compliance with Ofgem's supply licence conditions, including SLC 21B.1, 21B.7, 21B.9, 0.3(a)–(d), 27.5, 27.8 and 28B.5, relating to billing accuracy, transparency, customer treatment, vulnerability and debt recovery. I do not believe these concerns were adequately addressed.

I have now made a further request for reconsideration, referring to Section 7.2(b)(i)–(ii) of the Ombudsman's Terms of Reference, which provides for exceptional reconsideration where significant evidence was unavailable or not taken into account and could reasonably have substantially changed the outcome.

I am still within the final 14-day period to accept or reject the decision, yet my concerns remain unanswered.

My concern is whether the investigation was fair, whether the evidence was properly considered and why my appeal was rejected without sufficient explanation.

If these concerns remain unresolved, I intend to share my experience and supporting evidence publicly, including on Reddit, and pursue appropriate complaint and oversight channels.

An independent Ombudsman should protect the fairness of the complaint process, not leave consumers questioning whether their evidence was ever properly considered.

Very thorough and fair i was in good hands

Having got nowhere with British Gas about my complaint, I called the ombudsman and spoke with Kanky Mkumba, who was excellent at listening to my complaint, and with explaining the process.
The very same day, I was contacted by British Gas, and offered a resolution which met my original request to resolve my complaint.

1 star – Complaint closed, but the problem remains unresolved.

My experience with the Energy Ombudsman has left me seriously questioning the effectiveness of its complaints process.

I complained after British Gas transferred my account to British Gas Lite, following which a smart meter that had previously provided accurate readings became associated with repeated estimated bills.

The Ombudsman accepted an explanation about intermittent signal strength but, despite repeated requests, did not provide the technical evidence supporting that conclusion or adequately address whether British Gas Lite was failing to retrieve or process available readings.

I was eventually awarded £100 and an apology. British Gas then issued a generic letter that did not identify what had gone wrong or explain how the billing problem would be corrected. It even included unsolicited debt advice before declaring the matter amicably resolved.

When I challenged the outcome, the Ombudsman confirmed that British Gas had not been required to fix the underlying billing problem. I was told that no further investigation was necessary and that no further correspondence would be provided.

My separate complaint about the Ombudsman's own service was also declined without escalation to the Independent Assessor.

I accepted the remedy because the deadline had arrived, not because I considered the problem resolved.

The Ombudsman considers the case successfully closed. I am still receiving estimated bills and have not received a satisfactory explanation of why.

In my experience, the process focused on completing a remedy rather than establishing whether the customer's original problem had actually been resolved.

Closing a complaint is not the same as resolving it.

Now part of a bigger ShropWatch complaint.

AND TO THE REPLY FROM BRITISH GAS:

You publicly invite us to contact you with questions or concerns, yet we have already done so repeatedly. Your representatives have informed us that the case is closed and that no further correspondence will be entered into.

The underlying issue of British Gas Lite repeatedly issuing estimated bills remains unresolved, despite the £100 credit and apology.

We also challenged the technical explanation provided for the smart-meter problem and requested the evidence supporting it. We have not received a satisfactory explanation.

A generic public invitation to contact you is no substitute for addressing the questions already raised.

We will be including the correspondence and your public response in our forthcoming ShropWatch investigation into Ombudsman accountability.

They did help me to resolve the carry on, however I feel they are more in favour of the companies than what they are the public as the resolution agreed was what the energy company wanted with no additional consequences or recommendations and could therefore have been achieved by myself.

There for the little guy when big business just ignores your complaints or issues.

Issue with transfer to British Gas the ombudsman have hopefully resolved issues and through their intervention I have recieved greater compensation than British Gas offered. The computer system they use isn’t the best but once you speak to an advisor they are very helpful.

Helpful, resolved a problem going on a year about non existent smart meter and new key meter not being registered. Our never debt of £800 turn into a £150 in credit and also got £200 compensation. Staff explanation better than hours with Ovo.

I was given a decision in August with five remedies which I agreed to , energy company had until 1st Sept to implement , they did nothing then were given another 30 days and have refused to implement the remedies. Because they have refused i am now being told that the previous legally binding decision was incorrect . Ombudsman will not fight your case

After a year my complaint still hasnt been 100% signed off now, 9 months no invoice from a british gas sitting with £1500 and no way of knowing if this is correct .. had meter readings till February 2026 then got Ombusman involved now readings go back to October 2025 but had 2 bills since then.Been signed off completed today !!!
Your representative emailed saying she was closing the case as it was completed , which yes part is completed but no bills since february and after ombusman got involved 3 morr monthd of meter readings are missing

L have required the support of the ombudsman on 2 occasions with British gas, and on both occasions a satisfactory outcome was achieved.

The service was excellent and much quicker than I expected. Only problem I had was getting copies of emails to them. In the end it did not matter as the case was settled so quickly.

I found the service to be supportive, helpful, communicative and efficient. I found that all the points I made were examined and understood thoroughly, which was a great relief to me as the Energy Company had either not understood the same points or declined to act. The stress was taken off my shoulders and a resolution achieved.

Waste of time. Wouldn't even give 1 star. Did not resolve anything, allowed a company to continue to extort me for money, its a total facade, as they cant actually do anything to prevent big energy companies doing as they wish.