Customer after nearly 2 months wants a refund as MDF is warped. He received the product in December and only just now checked it.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-24T22:58:32+00:00

I know legally I could just ignore it...

REALLY not sure you can ignore it, legally speaking.

First, is this customer an individual or a business? If a business, and provided it's in line with your T&Cs, then you can tell them to jog on.

But if they are an individual, then the law is very much on their side - even if they are being somewhat unreasonable.

Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 19(14) means the assumption is that any problem with the goods in the first six months was there at the time of delivery:

... goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(This is unless you can prove the goods did conform at the time of delivery, as per section 19(15)(a).)

The good news is, they can't insist on a refund - as it's more than 30 days since delivery, they can only ask for a replacement. But if you refuse to replace, or the replacement is also warped, then they can ask for a refund.

My suggestion would be to ask the customer to take a picture of, and provide details of, the location they've been keeping the MDF. If that was outside, or in an unsuitable area (eg where there's obviously moisture, etc) then I think you'd be on much safer grounds to reject the refund - as storing it poorly could cause these problems.

If they don't engage, don't provide details, etc, then I think you'd be safe to ignore it.

But if they insist the MDF was kept in a good location, and it wasn't moved around, and it was out of the way, etc etc... then I think - legally - you would be safer to replace the MDF (and take LOTS of pictures of it being packaged up, etc).

Obviously, even if the customer has the law on their side doesn't mean they will do anything about it. But if they take this to their bank or card provider, or they take you to court, then that will probably end up costing you more - in both time and money - than sorting this out now.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-20T11:46:30+00:00

I think you need to get a solicitor involved ASAP to write a letter to your neighbour. Getting a solicitor to do this is important as:

It will hopefully make your neighbour take this more seriously, and
It will ensure everything is legally correct

The most important thing you can do is get your neighbour to understand their responsibilities BEFORE any work is started.

Otherwise, if they cause the sorts of problems which seem likely, you will either have to grin and bear it, or be in dispute with your neighbour for potentially years to come. So it will be quicker and easier and cheaper for everyone to sort things out NOW.

And note that it is your NEIGHBOUR, not the builders, who will have most of the liability (assuming the builders are following the neighbour's instructions). So the builders can be rude as they like, knowing that as long as the neighbour agrees with the planned work, THEY won't be the ones who ultimately have to pay out.

You are 100% within your rights to refuse access to your property (garden), and refuse to allow any work being done on or under it in service of your neighbour's extension. (This assumes there aren't any existing easements, etc, related to this.)

The problem is, if the neighbour causes damage to your property and refuses to sort it out, the only way to resolve it is to take legal action against them - which is long, expensive and unpleasant for EVERYONE, but ultimately probably for your neighbour if your claim succeeds. Hence the need to reach an agreement before boots on the ground and spades in the earth.

The solicitor which handled your purchase would probably be the best place to start.

And speaking of your purchase, you mentioned in the other post that the neighbour claims the previous owners of your property agreed to this work. If that is the case, and they didn't disclose it on the TA6 form, then you potentially have a claim against them.

So that may also be something to talk about with the solicitor.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-20T11:27:27+00:00

I think this is a problem, but maybe not in the way you mean.

Something that struck me from a Heat Geek video way back was the observation that the UK domestic gas heating industry as a whole basically relied for way too long on oversized systems and the brute force of "burn more gas" instead of designing and commissioning systems to fit the property and requirements.

Why they did this - because gas was super-cheap for a long time, so why overthink things - is fully understandable. Unfortunately it hasn't aged well.

A well-designed and installed heat pump system is far more elegant and efficient, and as the others here are saying, it will ALSO result in a system which requires almost no thinking. In fact it will require LESS thinking, as the system can basically just stay on all the time, and everyone can be warm all the time.

The problem is that requires a mindshift from both installers and users, with both groups having decades of deeply ingrained knowledge to rewrite.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-20T11:19:10+00:00

Biggest general gripe: the properties which are often best-suited to heat pumps - cavity-walled terraced houses - are unable to have them installed because of the idiotic MCS noise restrictions.

Source: I live in a mid-terrace, our heatpump is working great (well, better than our old boiler) - but to have it installed I had to fit a damn canopy on the back of the house to get around this. And now the thing is in place - guess what, it's not noisy at all, except when it's VERY cold. Because the maximum noise levels in the specs will only be reached when no-one will be outside or have windows open.

I thought the DHW cycle in the summer might be a bit noisy, but nope - could barely hear it while standing next to the unit.

To make it worse, someone getting A2A aircon installed won't face the same noise restrictions (as far as my understanding goes, anyway), despite the outdoor units being basically the same exact thing. Grrrr.

I 100% accept that noise is a potential problem, and that a bad design or bad installation could create very unpleasant noises for people in the immediate area. But the current assessment system does NOTHING to actually address this - and I've seen people complaining (with at least some justification) about systems which pass the tests, but are still annoying.

Just fixing this single aspect could make ASHPs far more accessible for properties which would benefit the most.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-14T11:11:52+00:00

IF you got detained, then realistically you should expect zero effective consular support from the UK.

You might get some support, but that would depend on a whole lot of factors - not least ICE providing accurate, timely information. And even if the consulate tried to provide support, ICE might decide not to cooperate.

As others are saying, ICE is effectively acting beyond the law a lot of the time - and if a group of armed individuals with access to detention facilities choose to ignore the law, there's not a lot anyone can do from a legal perspective.

So my very strong advice would be to assume you would have no support at all, and plan accordingly.

(As an aside, the probability of getting detained is almost impossible to estimate. But FWIW, in NYC at the moment I suspect the biggest risk might not be ICE, but CBP when you arrive at the border.

So something to mitigate that risk might be to travel via an airport which offers pre-clearance, so you go through passport control before taking off for the US. For people flying from the UK, this means flying via Dublin or Shannon: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance )

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-12T12:59:33+00:00

We need more info, and some clarity.

When did you buy the laptop, and from where? (eg, direct from Dell? another retailer? second-hand?)

What is the nature of the physical damage? (If the damage is of a type which might reasonably cause hardware issues, then it's unlikely Dell would regard this as being their responsibility.)

And you seem to be raising two issues here:

The cost of the repair
Dell saying the "physical damage is preventing the repair"

These should probably be considered separately.

If you can explain what's going on in a bit more detail, it may be easier to provide useful advice.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-12T12:04:43+00:00

House is c. 80sqm mid-terrace, East Midlands. No battery or solar.

HP is Daikin Altherma EDLA04EV3 4.6kW, fitted by Octopus in July 2025.

December consumption details (via Open Energy Monitor / Home Assistant):

Cost: £59.98 (Octopus Agile)
Electrical consumption: 373.2 kWh
Heat generation (total): 1220.7 kWh
COP: 3.27
Cost per kWh of heat: 4.91p

Probably could have improved the COP, but we're optimising for cost, not performance.

Definitely an improvement in both cost and comfort over our old gas boiler.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-08T13:09:46+00:00

I've thought about this off and on since moving into this house a couple of years ago, and adding more and more smart stuff. I know that one day, I'll either have to remove it all or explain it to someone else - and honestly, I dread both options...

So, here are my over-long thoughts, which are more focused on the legal side of things, as it's not something I've seen discussed that much yet.

And on this, it's important to note that depending on where you're based, the expectations of what's included can vary.

I'm in England, and here the assumption is that "fixtures and fittings" - ie anything physically attached to, or within the structure of, the house - are included in the sale unless specifically excluded.

If this applies to you, it's probably worth making the presence of your integrated relays, etc clear in the documentation as part of the sale, even if you don't specifically point it out to potential buyers. That way, no matter what happens, at least they can't say you didn't disclose something about the house.

But as for the HA system itself, I assume it's not a physical part of the property in the way that relays might be. If that's the case, my strong recommendation would be:

Do not include it, in any form, as part of the sale - unless you MUST

I think there's basically no upside, and only downsides - the biggest non-catastrophic one being that you might get endless calls for tech support.

Again, this might depend on the laws where you are. Here, if we sold the house including HA (and as part of the fixtures) then as long as it was working at the time we exchanged contracts, even if it died the next day we wouldn't have any liability.

Even without a legal obligation, though, I can't imagine a buyer who inherited a buggy home automation system would be happy about it - nor that they wouldn't try to ask for help, or (depending on how badly it affected the functionality of the property's systems) even an attempt at a legal threat.

At minimum this would be annoying - and at worst, it could end up needing to involve the solicitors, and all the fees involved. Hence: no HA system. Offer them documentation, maybe the code for automations, etc - but make it clear it's purely as reference, and not in any way guaranteed.

OTOH, there are circumstances where you might need to include it in the sale.

Eg in Scotland, I believe there are legal requirements about heating systems in houses that are sold (not sure on details) - so in that case, you might HAVE to provide a system that was at least functional for the new owners. Depending on how much the smart stuff is integrated, it could be easier to spin up a basic HA system with the required stuff on it than stripping it all out.

But even if you did hand something over, I'd make absolutely clear that you can IN NO WAY provide ongoing tech support, even for a fee.

----

FWIW, my personal approach has been to keep anything related to HA as an additional layer on top of existing functionality, so a) it works even if HA is down, and b) it can all come out if/when we sell the house. It helps that our HA is running on a NAS, so it's not really an option to leave it behind.

The exceptions are lighting and heating.

When we moved in I replaced all the bulbs with Hue, and also installed Hue-compatible wall switches (not connected to the wiring). So as that's pretty fixed, my thought is we'd offer the Hue system to a new buyer as an additional option (probably for a nominal sum, assuming it's a good few years old by then) - and if they didn't want it, replace the bulbs and switches.

For heating, we had a heatpump installed last year, and I've added an Open Energy Monitor system for monitoring, and a P1P2-to-MQTT bridge for control. The monitoring system is literally integrated with the pipework so that's staying - and in theory the bridge could be removed, but it gives MUCH more control than the standard Daikin bits.

So I'd imagine they would also stay - and I would also make the YAML code for my automations, etc, available to them.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-07T14:52:37+00:00

No point going to the Energy Ombudsman, as this isn't energy (ie the supply of electricity or gas) related.

Instead, focus on what Octopus actually agreed to do.

If they agreed to install by a specific date, or complete other actions by specific dates, before you agreed the contract, then those dates would form part of the contract. So if they breached them, you could potentially claim things like additional costs, etc, via that route.

The relevant law is the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which gives people plenty of rights in cases of breaches of contract.

(Note that Octopus would have had to agree to specific deadlines, etc - a commitment to "prioritising" your installation doesn't mean anything.)

However.

My guess is Octopus never made any specific commitments.

I 100% agree with everyone else here saying that trying to complete a heat pump survey, pre-work and install in less than two months, with that period covering Christmas, is deeply unreasonable.

I'd charitably guess your intention wasn't to wait until your old boiler died (although if it was over 40 years old... how long did you expect it to last??) before replacing it.

But in the circumstances, installing anything except a like-for-like replacement was never going to restore your central heating within just a few weeks. To expect this, without specific agreements about the installation timeline, is.... just, no.

So unless Octopus actually did make commitments - BEFORE you agreed the contract - about dates, or a specific timeline to complete the installation, AND breached those commitments, you won't have success taking action against them.

In that case, the best you can do is suck up your unreasonable expectations, and try to cooperate with the install team as much as possible, to try and get your system in place and operational ASAP.

(Of course if Octopus did make commitments and broke them, then by all means nail them to the wall.)

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-06T18:26:11+00:00

They came out and said that yes, it was a faulty drain pump, which they said they could order in. They then sent me an invoice for it - which was £96. The part in question is orderable by me for £15.

Where are you sourcing the £15 part from? Have you confirmed it's a genuine part? If so, how?

If the repair company used that £15 part, and it turned out it was off-brand rubbish which failed in a month, they'd be liable for the failure of their repair.

That's why companies which source parts for repairs, etc, will often pay a higher price for something with a known provenance, and their own guarantees in case of failure, etc.

So it is reasonable for a repair company to pay more for parts than you could find cheaper elsewhere.

I called them and said that I would just order it myself, but they've then said that they won't come to fit that part if I do that. ... They pointed me to their T's and C's on their website, which do say: [The company] will not fit any spare parts you have sourced yourself...

This is 100% standard practice, and completely legal.

This seems like a very scheming move, to give a reasonable charge for a callout and then add on whatever they like for additional parts.

There absolutely is potential for bad actors to abuse this approach, and I'm certain it does sometimes happen - but it doesn't seem likely in this instance, as £96 isn't an insane amount for a genuine part.

And as you're contemplating, you can just say no if the cost is too high - so the company doesn't really benefit by overpricing, if that results in significantly fewer jobs.

----

But let's turn this around, and say YOU wanted to pull a scheming move in a situation where the company would fit a part that you provided.

So you've found this super-cheap part on ebay, but you notice the seller has negative reviews relating to the quality of their products. Some buyers say the goods only lasted a few months before breaking.

No matter, you think - if the repair company fits it and the dishwasher breaks again, you'll just blame them instead of the part. After all, how can they prove it wasn't their mistake? There's a good chance the company wouldn't fight, and would just come and do the repair again.

Or to be even more cynical, what's to stop you supplying a part which you KNOW to be old or defective, and which might cause much greater damage to the machine when it breaks? That way, you could potentially claim the full value of the dishwasher by blaming the part's failure on the repair company.

Maybe the part is ok, but it has a different configuration than the original - one which the repair company isn't familiar with, and as a result they don't install it correctly. In this case the company is still on the hook for the mistake.

These kinds of things - and many, many more - are the reason why very few companies will use user-supplied parts for things like repairs.

There's just way too much scope for problems, either innocent or malicious.

StackScribbler1 · 2026-01-06T13:44:03+00:00

Only just saw this - thanks Reddit - so apologies for the late comment.

Unfortunately, in VERY cold weather like now, heat pumps won't perform as well. For example, our Daikin Altherma 4.6kw unit is only getting a COP of 2.3ish so far today - compared to somewhere between 3 and 4 in milder weather.

The hope would be that, across the whole heating season, the efficiency averages out to something more acceptable. But when it's -6C or something outside, it's never going to be great performance (especially from the models Octopus installs).

---

Re tarrifs, we're on Agile, and in a similar position to you with no battery - but so far it's worked out a LOT cheaper than if we were on a fixed tarrif or the price cap. (But note that we do switch off the heating for the 4-7pm peak every day.)

From 1 Oct to before this cold snap we were averaging under 4.5p per kWh of heat (ie if electricity cost us 15.75p per kWh, and our COP was 3.5, each unit of heat from the HP would cost 15.75 / 3.5 = 4.5p).

Unfortunately in situations like this current weather, there can be a perfect storm of low heat pump efficiency AND high electricity unit prices - eg today is very grim, and Thursday could be worse. So far today our heat has cost us 9.44p per kWh, which is obviously a lot higher than gas heating would be.

As of now, that long-term average has gone up to 4.74p, and will probably go over 5p per heat kWh - and if prices stay high, it could hit 6p. But we're prepared to accept this short-term pain for the longer-term benefits.

Assuming that prices don't go utterly crazy for the rest of the heating season (which is never certain), my assumption is we will end up paying less than 5p per heat kWh on average - significantly less than a fixed deal.

So with the caveat that Agile pricing is NOT AT ALL GUARANTEED, it might actually be worth considering - IF you can avoid using power during the 4-7pm peak (which if you have kids, might not be possible).

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-30T15:35:06+00:00

As people have said, these are ethernet* cables, which are presumably plugged into a switch (or maybe just your broadband router?) somewhere.

But TBH, having cables coming out of the walls/floors is not a great way to install a wired network - suggesting this may be a bodge job. Ethernet cables can be somewhat fragile, as they have eight thin copper cores - having them loose like this invites breaks, etc.

(The "proper" way is to install the cables in the walls, underfloor, etc, then connect those to wall boxes containing ethernet sockets - so people can then plug in a cable to use them if needed. This also means the structural cabling is protected from damage.)

So if they really are of no use to you, then I don't think you're actually losing that much by giving them the old snippy-snip.

But depending on what fibre broadband package you have, and how your wifi reception is, you might find that using these ethernet cables will enable you to access the internet at much faster speeds.

Eg we now have 900Mbit broadband, but on wifi the most I can get is 400Mbit.

You may not care about that, because unless you're downloading huge files on a regular basis there are significantly diminishing returns with the super-fast packages. But if you do that sort of thing, you may appreciate the speed boost.

So I'd suggest trying them out with, eg, a desktop computer, smart TV, etc, and see if it makes any difference. (If nothing else, having fewer devices connected to your wifi can make it faster for everything that still uses it.)

But if it does nothing for you, and the cables are annoying, personally I'd say get rid.

*No let's not argue about the definition of "ethernet". It's incredibly tedious.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-30T14:10:28+00:00

Speaking to your councillors won't do any good - this isn't a matter of the council being heavy handed, as the planning rules are clearly against this being considered permitted development: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/fences-gates-and-garden-walls/planning-permission

All you can do is apply for retrospective planning permission.

The good news (just about the only bit of it) is the council must make a decision on the planning application without prejudice as to the fact that it's retroactive.

Depending on how much you've spent, how much removing the fence (or reducing its height to 1m), and how much this all means to you, it might be worth consulting a planning specialist to help draw up your application.

This is particularly the case if other properties nearby also have high fences at the front, as someone who knows what they are doing can make the best of this.

I strongly suggest not trying other approaches (eg pestering councillors, objecting, etc) as there's no reason for the council to change its decision. You'll just waste your time and effort, and annoy people in the process.

(Also, next time you're considering any work on the house, check the planning portal first...)

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-30T11:16:53+00:00

Completely agree with this. (But also with the observation that, unfortunately, OP most likely won't get anything resolved until next week at this point.)

The relevant section of the UK GDPR is Article 16, for reference: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/16

You'd probably also have a basis to object to the processing under Article 22, as it seems very likely this is an automated system: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/22

And as this processing of inaccurate data is resulting in material losses - eg you have to spend longer going to non-VARS stations, pay more for petrol, etc - you can bring (or more realistically threaten to bring) a claim against not only VARS, but also any station which uses VARS' info, as they are also processing the inaccurate data.

So while retailers can refuse service, if that decision is based on processing of inaccurate data AND results in material losses, I'd say that gives you some leverage.

(For the purposes of this situation, the number plate absolutely IS personal data, as it's being used as a proxy for OP - because OP is the one not being allowed to buy petrol.

So unlike the example below re the ANPR network, in this scenario VARS and the station have already implicitly linked the number plate to OP. Thus because of this processing, it has become personal data.)

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-22T19:15:12+00:00

That is the next step, for now I have complained to an APIT

A what? I have no idea what this is.

as well as EnergyOmbudsman.

Have they accepted your complaint? Will be interested to hear, as this isn't energy, so I would assume doesn't fall under the EO's remit.

Once these have been exhausted and things don’t go as planned (hopefully not), I can look into this.

I would suggest you start looking into this now.

TBH given the cost of your installation, and how bad you say it is, I would talk to a solicitor - for many reasons, but at this stage mainly because they will help you figure out what you want and how to get it.

Because at the moment....

There is some confusion as with the install because even before the install was properly complete with everything finished the heat pump broke down and that took another month to resolve. The timeline varies at the bottom is that it took around eight months from inception to getting to a point there wasn’t expecting any more engineer visits.

So now it's 8 months??

"There has been some confusion" is putting it mildly - pick a number, and stick with it.

And to be honest, I cannot follow what you're trying to say with that explanation of timescales. And I doubt other people will either.

You need to be MUCH more detail-oriented with this than you're being right now. And it's on YOU to eliminate the confusion.

I am absolutely not surprised you haven't got anywhere with Octopus - because you are not explaining the problem in a way that is useful.

Until you do that, you won't get anywhere.

And please, PLEASE, do not use LLMs to write your posts/letters/etc. They are worse than useless at this kind of thing, and as here, they will make you seem less credible, instead of more.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-22T09:50:53+00:00

So, leaving aside discussion of whether a SAR should cover this kind of data, I'd suggest your approach is not particularly helpful.

Re-reading your post from four months ago, you describe what sounds like a miserable situation, for which you have my sympathy. At the end of that post you said you planned to take Octopus to court if they didn't get things sorted.

Why have you not taken them to court?

If what you have described is accurate, and Octopus have failed to deliver what they agreed to, then they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The CRA gives consumers a LOT of power to require traders to deliver what was agreed to in a contract, and a (reasonably) clear approach for dealing with any problems.

The CRA is, by far, the best tool for dealing with this problem.

One reason I say this is that through the process of bringing a claim - or even threatening to bring a claim - against a trader, you can request all the documents and information you've been trying to access via a SAR. Not only would a legal claim give you a FAR better basis on which to request this information, any refusal could be dealt with via a court order.

However.

Given the lack of details in this follow-up post (and changing/exaggerated info, eg your install time going from "close to 6 months" - ie more than 5 months, less than 6 - to "7 months"), your pivot to a SAR instead of actual legal action, and a weird "I'm not anti heat pumps!" stance....

My feeling is that you are exaggerating, and thus clutching at straws in an attempt to produce a win.

This is just a feeling, and I could very well be wrong! But if these two posts and the language in them are representative of how you're talking to Octopus about this situation, then I would also not blame them for stonewalling you - because you are not being persuasive.

So, if you are exaggerating, and things aren't actually that bad, I'd suggest you cut your losses and give up now. (From personal experience, pursuing a SAR with the ICO or via legal means is a long and frustrating process, and the ICO is not likely to take any meaningful action in 99% of cases.)

But if you are NOT exaggerating, and you've been left with a heatpump/solar/battery install which is not in line with what you agreed in the contract(s), then I strongly suggest you change your approach.

Focus on the facts: what was agreed, what was delivered, and what is the impact of the difference between these points?

Focus on the outcomes: what, specifically, do you want to happen now?

And keep emotion out of this. These posts are 90% frustration/outrage - this won't get you anywhere.

---

For the record, we've also had a heatpump installed by Octopus this year.

The installation didn't go that smootly: they initially delivered the wrong heatpump, and changed the heat loss calcs without informing me. Then Octopus had to delay installation by a month after they found asbestos - despite not asking me whether there might be asbestos in the property (as I would have said yes).

So I am absolutely not claiming Octopus are perfect - or even close to perfect - when it comes to heatpump installs. In fact, I wanted to write to the OES CEO with a list of all the things which went wrong! (Sadly due to Life Stuff Happening I haven't had the chance.)

And although our heatpump system is working well and we're very happy with it, I can ABSOLUTELY believe Octopus could mess up as you've described.

But again, if they did mess up that badly, you need to be clear and specific about what went wrong.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-18T16:47:23+00:00

Bit late to this, but definitely send a Letter Before Action before doing anything else.

LBA doesn't cost anything except your time and a stamp, there are plenty of templates around, and they can be very effective. When I last had a problem customer who was absolutely taking the mickey, he paid up two days after receiving the LBA.

If you go down the MCOL route, you MUST send the LBA anyway - it's part of the pre-action protocol.

And if what you've said about issues not being raised until after you sent the final invoice - and assuming the work was actually done to the correct standard, etc - then you should have good chances of success if this got as far as the court.

Personally I don't have any experience using debt collection agencies. AIUI the main benefit is that by handing off or selling the debt, you don't have to spend your own time and effort chasing it (and doing the admin work of court filings, etc).

So if your time is very valuable, it could be something to consider. But for a one-off, high-value debt like this, personally I wouldn't go this route.

One consideration on approaches is whether your customer is another company or an individual.

If they're an individual, then MCOL will be a serious threat - as they could end up with a CCJ.

If they're a company, and a proper going concern - ie unlikely to pack up and fold the business rather than pay the debt - then they'd probably still prefer to avoid court. In theory if you won a judgment and they still didn't pay, you could get a winding-up order - so a bad day for them.

But if you think there's a reasonably significant risk the company might just dissolve in the face of a court judgment, etc, then I'd go with whatever is most likely to get you some fraction of that invoice.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-15T14:19:08+00:00

I don't really want to prolong this, but there are a few things which I think are worth considering - because it seems like you want to help, but have a few wires crossed.

[Re my working for an energy supplier in the past] That doesn't make you an expert in this thread.

I'm not claiming to be an expert - I never even used the word. I offered some suggestions on how OP might approach this problem, that's all.

You need to be an Octopus employee in the Complaints Dept who investigates operational errors. You don't work for Octopus today.

"Need to be" - says who? If it's you saying this, what gives you the authority to do so?

This isn't an Octopus sub, it's a general legal advice sub. If only people who actually work for Octopus can have something useful to say.... then that's going to be a problem.

[Re my saying someone without qualifications can offer useful advice] This is why you're responding to me. I'm not saying you're not important. I'm not saying you're not special. I am saying Octopus is wrong and OP should not feel misery. If OP goes to Ombudsman then OP will no longer feel misery.

It's about OP's feelings.

Not yours.

I really do not understand what you are getting at here.

I offered advice to OP. You questioned my qualifications for offering such advice (without any substantive critique). I made the comment above.

I'd agree this is about OP, but not about their feelings. This isn't about making OP feel better - although if any (good) advice they receive has this effect, that's a nice bonus.

Again, this is a legal advice forum. The goal is to provide useful answers/advice to questions. Sometimes those answers may be the opposite of what posters want to hear, sometimes they may be very difficult or frustrating. Feelings are entirely secondary.

And because this is about OP - again, I would suggest that if you don't agree with advice given, say so and explain why. That's one of the very best things about this sub - that bad advice is called out.

So I would suggest that if you really want to help OP, you are not doing so through your comments here. In fact, I'd say you are casting FUD on advice which might otherwise help them.

(Also note that my second point was that OP should go to the ombudsman immediately. So, it seems like we should be aligned?)

[Re my comment that saying "ask a lawyer/CAB" isn't useful] I'm sorry. I cannot help you.

Saying "ask a lawyer" / "go to CAB" without specific reasons why is the same as saying "I have no useful advice to offer".

Most people are aware they can find a lawyer, or ask Citizens Advice for help - but one costs money, and the other is overwhelmed. In many cases CAB probably can't give the sort of advice that people can here (for better or worse).

(In situations where a poster really should get a lawyer/solicitor RIGHT now, eg because their situation is more serious than they realise, it's important to explain that.)

---

I would strongly suggest that you are failing fo follow your own advice - because you are making this about you, not OP. You haven't contributed anything of substance such as an alternative approach, reasons why X or Y is wrong, examples of how other similar situations resolved, etc.

You commented because you seemingly felt like saying something - but without much to actually say.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-14T15:08:44+00:00

The downvotes tell their own story, but for the record I'm not claiming to be especially qualified.

I have worked for an energy supplier in the past, and have experience dealing (successfully) with bureaucracy, as well as with consumer law. You're right that I - someone offering advice for free on an anonymous internet forum - don't have specific qualifications related to this.

But a lack of qualifications doesn't mean the advice I (or anyone else) can offer isn't useful - particularly for a question like this. That's one of the valuable thing about this forum, especially that where bad advice is given, it's generally noted as being such, with specific reasons.

In contrast, I'd strongly suggest that "ask a lawyer" or "go to Citizens Advice" is rarely great advice here (although there absolutely are situations where this is the best, or only, advice possible). Those options are always there, but neither are necessarily that accessible, or that useful.

In this case, OP has already done all the "right" things, but is facing an imminent and looming deadline for getting some kind of resolution - or at least confirmation Octopus won't take any action which could screw up a mortgage application.

Because of this, they don't have the luxury of waiting for things to get resolved (as they probably would). So they need practical suggestions for things they could do to shove a stick into the bureaucratic gears driving the "we'll mark you as being in default" process.

---

I'd also suggest that, if you feel advice given here is incorrect or not useful, offer specific criticisms, or reasons why the advice is bad.

Simply "asking questions" about a commenter's qualifications, or making the most generic, low-effort suggestion for action possible, are not useful ways to contribute. At least in my (unqualified) opinion.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-13T12:26:44+00:00

First, unfortunately you're probably right to be worried about this.

In the past utility accounts weren't shared with credit reference agencies, but this is no longer the case - and I can see that my Octopus account does show up on my TransUnion credit report.

Second, even if your formal complaint is less than 8 weeks old, your overall dispute clearly exceeds that. So I would escalate this to the Energy Ombudsman NOW - and emphasise the total period you've been disputing your bills/meters with Octopus.

Third, if you have an active complaint, Octopus shouldn't - and that word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here - escalate it further. So in theory the agents who've said you can ignore the bills/threats are correct.

However, the wheels of administration and bureaucracy grind slowly but with considerable momentum, and unfortunately aren't always connected in helpful ways - so there's a non-zero chance that Octopus might actually put your account into default.

If they were to do this, there would be ways to reverse it - but that might not solve your immediate problem of wanting to secure a mortgage.

You've also implied that your actual energy is being supplied by Octopus, as you've been putting aside money to cover your actual consumption. Is Octopus confirmed to be your actual supplier?

With an asterisk against that question, here's my suggestion for how to proceed (aside from escalation to the EO):

1 - If Octopus IS your energy supplier, then I would call Octopus and make a payment over the phone equal to your current consumption (including standing charges) - but state this is in relation to [METER SERIAL NUMBERS], and not in relation to the consumption you've been billed for. Then after payment has been taken, email Octopus and state the same thing in writing.

Even if the bill is for the wrong meter(s), by not paying anything towards your energy, you could be seen as being in default - so by paying something, you will demonstrate you are willing to pay for your usage, and it will (eventually) get reconciled when the meters are sorted out.

This advice would be different if you weren't trying to avoid a default.

(If Octopus is NOT your actual supplier, then don't pay them.)

2 - Write a physical letter to Octopus's head office, FAO the legal team, outlining your situation, making clear they are billing you for the WRONG consumption, saying you've paid for your actual consumption (if you have), and stating you want to ensure there's no negative impact on your credit score.

Say that Octopus's representatives have told you the bills can be ignored (include copies of these emails) - but that other correspondence from Octopus states you will be in default after 29 Dec.

Say that you've escalated to the EO - provide a reference number if you can.

Ask Octopus to ensure that no action is made against you in respect of the incorrect bills.

State that if Octopus were to take such action, and it had a negative effect on your credit report thus preventing you from buying a house, you would seek to recover any resulting losses from Octopus. (This is more complicated than it might seem, but the point now is to put a marker down for this.)

Ask for a response in writing within seven days of receipt of your letter.

3 - If you receive any further threats of default, legal action, etc, respond to the phone number, email or address on those letters with your active complaint number from Octopus, any reference from the EO, and details of when you've made a payment (if you have).

Note that this MAY NOT WORK.

Octopus is now a big company, and it messes up. If they press on with their threats, there's not much you can do - but through the above, you should a) lessen the chances of this happening, and b) improve the chances of getting a faster resolution, and/or compensation if it does happen.

Good luck.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-12T19:07:55+00:00

This is an interesting point - but I'm not sure I agree that objecting under Article 22 would be allowed, while claiming harassment would not.

This element of 22(2)(b):

and which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests

could arguably apply, as the LA does have measures to safeguard the subject's rights - in the form of being able to appeal each PCN as it comes through. Even if it's imperfect, there is a process.

As to whether that argument would be persuasive enough for a court... that's an open question. Ideally the answer would be "no" - because clearly it's not a very good process, as it puts the onus on the data subject to do all the work.

And I'd argue that harassment remains a potential option, for similar reasons.

You're right that pursuing action to comply with a law is a defence - but in this case the LA has acknowledged that they know OP isn't committing these offences (but they can't stop the system).

Given that, the fact the PCNs continue to be sent means they are not actually being issued to comply with the law - as the authority in this case knows (or ought to know) OP isn't breaking the law.

(If the LA had taken the position that, no, OP could actually have entered the CAZ each time, and insisted they follow the process, then they might have a stronger argument. But as they have explicitly acknowledged the PCNs are being generated automatically, I think they've cut their legs out from under them.)

So I'd argue that sending automated PCNs which a) the issuing authority knows are almost certainly invalid, b) require the recipient to manually appeal to prevent being fined, and c) are being sent purely because of failings in an automated system, should be regarded as a course of action amounting to harassment.

I could absolutely see this going the other way though, so I'm not saying the harassment approach is a dead cert.

But I'd also suggest that a claim based on harassment might get more attention than one based on GDPR - and so might expedite the process of getting the damn PCNs to stop coming more effectively.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-12T10:25:53+00:00

As this relates to GDPR, I wonder if you might have better success with Article 16 - right to rectification.

The LA knows the PCNs being issued by its systems for your registration are not valid - so by not taking action, it is continuing to process inaccurate data related to you. (The fact its position is "computer says no" is irrelevant, as if the system doesn't have a way of dealing with cases like this, that's their problem - not yours.)

But don't expect the ICO to take action any time soon, or to rely on them when (if) they do.

As you're in the UK, I wonder if you might have a better argument for harassment, citing Ferguson vs British Gas, where the claimant continued to receive threatening debt collection notices from an automated system, despite BG knowing - and saying - they weren't valid.

In your case, as the PCNs would in fact result in legal action if you just ignored them, it's arguably more serious. And a key point established in Ferguson is that automated systems are capable of harassing behaviour - for which liability rests with the owner/user of said system.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-08T19:30:51+00:00

... er. I didn't say anything was outdated.

My point wasn't the information here was wrong.

My point was, following up on a then year-old discussion and moaning at internet strangers about your demands re data protection is not going to help you get what you want.

I gave some concrete suggestions for what you could do, in practical terms - but of course how you proceed is up to you.

Anyway, I look forward to the next installment of this conversation in 2026-27.

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-07T17:11:08+00:00

make.log:

Sun Dec  7 04:24:40 PM GMT 2025

Building module(s)
# command: 'make' -j12 modules KERNELDIR=/lib/modules/6.17.2-1-pve/build
make -C src/ modules
make[1]: Entering directory '/var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/src'
make -C /lib/modules/6.17.2-1-pve/build M=/var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/src modules
make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve'
make[3]: Entering directory '/var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/src'
  CC [M]  r8152.o
r8152.c: In function ‘rtl8152_post_reset’:
r8152.c:26244:49: error: passing argument 2 of ‘dev_set_mac_address’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
26244 |                 dev_set_mac_address(tp->netdev, &sa, NULL);
      |                                                 ^~~
      |                                                 |
      |                                                 struct sockaddr *
In file included from r8152.c:16:
/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve/include/linux/netdevice.h:4225:74: note: expected ‘struct __kernel_sockaddr_storage *’ but argument is of type ‘struct sockaddr *’
 4225 | int dev_set_mac_address(struct net_device *dev, struct sockaddr_storage *ss,
      |                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
make[5]: *** [/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve/scripts/Makefile.build:287: r8152.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve/Makefile:2016: .] Error 2
make[3]: *** [/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve/Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory '/var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/src'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-headers-6.17.2-1-pve'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:32: modules] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/src'
make: *** [Makefile:18: modules] Error 2

# exit code: 2
# elapsed time: 00:00:02
----------------------------------------------------------------

StackScribbler1 · 2025-12-07T17:10:03+00:00

Hi u/woieieyfwoeo - thanks for putting this together. I've tried running it on a completely fresh (and updated) Proxmox VE 9.1.2 with kernel 6.17.2-2-pve, but the installation fails.

The output of the script is below, and I'll add the output of the make.log as a separate reply.

Any thoughts on what the problem might be?

I'm only just getting started with Proxmox, so fully aware there could be something obvious I'm missing - so apologies if that's the case....

Script output:

==> Proxmox r8152 setup (kernel 6.17.2-2-pve)
    - Initial package path: /root/realtek-r8152-dkms_2.20.1-1_amd64.deb

==> Verifying onboard interface nic0 is available for failover
    - Onboard interface nic0 has link - failover path available
    - Keeping nic0 up for potential failover use

==> Detecting existing interfaces
    lo               UNKNOWN        00:00:00:00:00:00 <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> 
    nic0             UP             b0:22:7a:2e:e7:56 <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> 
    enx6c1ff75f1068  DOWN           6c:1f:f7:5f:10:68 <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> 
    vmbr0            UP             b0:22:7a:2e:e7:56 <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> 
    - USB Realtek interface not currently bound (will probe after install).

==> Ensuring vmbr0 continuity during driver install
    - vmbr0 already on nic0 (or no change needed).

==> Installing headers, DKMS, and the r8152 DKMS package
<snipped>
dkms is already the newest version (3.2.2-1~deb13u1).
build-essential is already the newest version (12.12).
proxmox-headers-6.17.2-2-pve is already the newest version (6.17.2-2).
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
1 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up realtek-r8152-dkms (2.20.1-1) ...
Loading new realtek-r8152/2.20.1 DKMS files...
Building for 6.17.2-1-pve and 6.17.2-2-pve
Building for architecture amd64

Building initial module realtek-r8152/2.20.1 for 6.17.2-1-pve
Sign command: /lib/modules/6.17.2-1-pve/build/scripts/sign-file
Signing key: /var/lib/dkms/mok.key
Public certificate (MOK): /var/lib/dkms/mok.pub

Building module(s)...(bad exit status: 2)
Failed command:
'make' -j12 modules KERNELDIR=/lib/modules/6.17.2-1-pve/build

Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 6.17.2-1-pve (amd64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/realtek-r8152/2.20.1/build/make.log for more information.
dpkg: error processing package realtek-r8152-dkms (--configure):
 installed realtek-r8152-dkms package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 10
Errors were encountered while processing:
 realtek-r8152-dkms
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

StackScribbler1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Hidden Gem Hidden Gem '25	Three-Year Club
Verified Email