Why has British Gas put up my direct debit from £80 . . . to £800?

Dear Sally

MY MOTHER, who is 85, suffers from osteoarthritis and had a hip replacement earlier this year, from which she is still recovering. She lives alone in a twobedroom flat in a remote part of Devon and recently received a bill from British Gas stating that her direct debit payments will rise from £80 a month to £805 a month.

She was shocked and upset. When she rang the company to question the rise, no one addressed the absurdity of the new direct debit sum. And, although one person said the bill might be wrong, it was suggested to my mum twice that she should probably switch to a prepayment plan to help manage the debt.

I worry that other older and vulnerable people are hearing the same advice from energy firms.

A. H., Glasgow.

RECEIVING an unexpected energy bill ten times the normal sum would chill anyone to the bone. Being elderly, and living on her own, your mother felt particularly vulnerable, especially as you told me she is very careful about using the heating and only sets it to come on for short bursts each day.

With her new bill set at £805 a month, she would have been looking at an annual charge of £9,660.

We all know energy prices are soaring sharply, but this bill difference seems ridiculous. And the government’s energy Price guarantee should be protecting her from the worst of the increases — at least until April.

A customer in an average home with typical energy consumption might expect to pay about £2,500 a year from this month. But your mother lives on her own in a small flat, so surely her bills would come in well below this level?

You sent me a copy of the offending bill, which revealed a frustrating contradiction. At the bottom left of the page it showed that your mother’s estimated annual usage would cost £2,267.30.

So how on earth did British gas arrive at the absurd direct debit calculation of more than £800 a month — nearly £10,000 a year?

I was further confused by the fact your mother has a smart meter installed, which is designed to supply accurate readings of usage and provide precise bills.

I asked the energy giant to shed some light on this barmy bill. i also wanted it to explain why your mother was being asked to consider a pre-payment option. This is the most expensive method of paying for energy and can leave customers vulnerable to having their supply cut off if they don’t pay enough upfront.

At first, British gas came back quickly with an apology and confirmation that your mother’s direct debit had been cancelled to ensure the £805 was not taken from her bank account.

A spokesman confirmed that she won’t be moved to a pre-payment meter and said British gas would never have forced this on her. They claimed this was simply given as an option for her to manage her bills and pay back the debt owed at a low rate.

When i asked for recordings or transcripts of the calls to check for myself what she was told, British gas refused.

However, it stated it was satisfied the call handlers had not steered her to pre-payment.

I still needed to get to the bottom of the tenfold bill increase, so asked the firm to check the smart meter. A few days later, an engineer reported that it was fault-free. Then, calum Robertson, a senior complaints executive who picked up your mother’s case after my intervention, had a light-bulb moment.

Since your mother’s account had been one of thousands taken over by British gas earlier this year when her previous supplier, Together energy, went bust, he thought a problem may have arisen at transfer.

He contacted the administrators of that firm to check the accuracy of the meter readings supplied when your mother was moved over. More days passed. Then, finally, the mystery was solved.

The energy giant found a serious error with the meter reading at transfer. The numbers have now been reset and the bill recalculated. This has led to a credit of around £ 300 being refunded to your mother’s bank account.

British gas also sent her flowers to apologise for the upset.

Her monthly direct debit payments will be higher in future, but a far more manageable £138 — £1,656 a year. You and your mum are mightily relieved.

Your case serves as a warning to others landed with outlandish energy bills: do not give up the fight to have them investigated — and corrected.

■ LAST week, i wrote about the case of a NatWest customer whose £20,000 bet was stopped by the bank because it feared such a large transaction could be fraudulent.

The customer was miffed because by the time the payment was finally released, after he had visited his bank branch, the odds for his wager on norwich city Fc being relegated from the Premier League had worsened slightly.

Although in the end he won the bet and took home winnings of £5,700, these were £286 less than he would have bagged had NatWest not been so vigilant.

Despite pleas from him for me to take on his case, i decided against it and instead invited readers to have their say.

i received a fantastic response — including from Tony Hazell, a former Money Mail editor whom i had mentioned in my piece and who is a keen supporter of norwich city.

Almost all the correspondence i received was in support of my decision not to waste time chasing reimbursement when the bank was only doing its duty to protect its customers.

Several of you, including Tony, said he should have contacted the bank to warn it in advance of making the sizeable transaction.

Some praised NatWest for its caution in a world where fraud is rife, while others expressed concern the compensation culture has got out of hand, when someone wants help recouping £286 after netting an already sizeable win.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to write to me and back my decision.

■ WRITE to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@dailymail.co.uk — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.