Are Actual Electricity Bills Actually… Actual?
I’m handling multiple client cases involving PE (Pozitive Energy) Solutions that raise serious concerns about billing accuracy, data integrity, and transparency on Half-Hourly (HH) and register usage data.
These are not minor discrepancies.
They point to a potentially systemic issue in how HH data is being used – and in some cases, misrepresented – within billing.
Case 1: Estimated Data used for Actual Bills
In the first case, my client was billed using what Pozitive labelled as “Actual (A)” consumption. However:
This is not a rounding issue. This is a material discrepancy.
This strongly indicates that estimated or incorrect HH data was used in billing, despite invoices being clearly marked as Actual, which may constitute a misleading billing practice under Trading Standards.
Update: 11th September 2026
This matter was escalated to the Energy Ombudsman on 11 May 2026.
During the Ombudsman process, Pozitive was unable to provide actual Half-Hourly data for the key disputed period. The HH data supplied showed Estimated (E) data from 25 November 2025 through to 17 May 2026, with Actual (A) data only available from 18 May 2026 onwards.
This confirmed the central concern raised from the outset: the original invoices had been presented as “Actual”, but Pozitive could not provide the underlying actual HH data for the period being disputed.
Following the Ombudsman’s involvement, Pozitive proposed to resolve the historic billing period using an agreed average daily consumption figure based on the later actual HH data. Although this did not fully reconcile to the customer’s own cumulative meter readings, the proposed resolution was acceptable to my client and the matter was settled through the Ombudsman on that basis.
The important point is that my client’s complaint was successful. Pozitive couldn’t provide the actual HH data for the disputed period, and an acceptable resolution was reached with the customer.
Going forward, Pozitive has provided sufficient evidence that actual HH data is now being obtained from 18 May 2026 onwards, which should allow future invoices to be checked against actual meter readings.
This case demonstrates why business energy customers should not assume that an invoice marked “Actual” is necessarily supported by actual underlying HH data. Where the figures do not reconcile, the supplier should be challenged to provide the HH data behind the bill.
Case 2: Incorrect Change-of-Supply Billing
A second client case raised similar concerns; this time relating to change-of-supply readings.
Pozitive billed to a night register closing read of 25,265.92 (30-06-2024)
Register Data from the follow-on supplier, EDF, shows that reading was not reached until January 2025
The client was billed for energy by Pozitive that wasn’t actually consumed until well over six months later with the next supplier. As EDF’s rates were cheaper than Pozitive’s, not only did Pozitive charge for energy that my client didn’t consume whilst under contract with them, but, to rub salt into the wound, my client was charged more by Pozitive than EDF would have charged them.
Disputed billing by Pozitive: ~£3,755.31
Residual client loss (due to tariff differences): ~£2,000
Despite this, Pozitive has still not provided the flat file data, which EDF provided without hesitation.
EDF later amended their opening readings to align with Pozitive’s disputed closing readings but this does not resolve the underlying issue: that Pozitive’s closing reading is inconsistent with the register data provided by EDF, which reinforces the need for Pozitive to provide their register data to validate their position. Both suppliers cannot be correct, as they’re both claiming the same meter reading for dates that are six months apart.
Failure to Provide the Underlying Dataset
This section was added 11th May 2026
Despite repeated requests dating back to March 2026 (and more broadly over the past year), Pozitive has still failed to provide the complete underlying dataset supporting its revised billing position in a clear and usable format (such as .csv or .xlsx).
Pozitive initially advised that it did not have the functionality to provide a flat file. However, it later asserted that the data had already been provided.
Data subsequently produced by Pozitive contained conflicting readings for the same timestamps, including entries marked for deletion, raising concerns regarding data integrity and read substitution.
In addition, Pozitive has since revised the disputed balance further and attempted to collect an additional £1,058.16 from the client’s bank account by Direct Debit on 8 May 2026.
This collection activity took place despite:
As a precaution, the client was forced to cancel the Direct Debit mandate with their bank.
Pozitive confirmed that the appointed Data Collector during the relevant period was UKDC/IMServ. However, a validated and agreed underlying dataset from the Data Collector has still not been produced.
The central issue therefore remains unchanged: Pozitive continues to pursue disputed charges whilst still failing to provide the complete underlying dataset required to independently validate the billing.
This section was added 11th September 2026
This matter has now been through the Energy Ombudsman process, whereby the Ombudsman has upheld Pozitive’s claim despite never providing the underlying meter/register data needed to substantiate the disputed change-of-supply readings. Instead, Pozitive provided bills, billing summaries and readings labelled as “actual”. That is not the same thing.
This is particularly concerning because EDF provided underlying smart meter data which contradicted the readings relied upon by Pozitive. That data indicated that the disputed reading was not reached until months after the supply had left Pozitive. Despite this, the Ombudsman accepted Pozitive’s position without requiring Pozitive to provide the actual underlying data needed to prove its case. In my opinion, that is a serious failure to properly test the evidence in a technical billing dispute.
Following the Ombudsman outcome, my client has reluctantly decided to settle the original disputed balance with Pozitive as a purely commercial decision. That is not because my client accepts Pozitive’s billing is correct. It is because enough time has already been wasted trying to get basic underlying data from Pozitive, while the Ombudsman has, in my view, failed to require the supplier to provide the evidence on which its billing depends.
Common Thread in both Cases
Across both cases, the same issue keeps surfacing: Pozitive has failed to provide the underlying data necessary to fully validate the disputed billing, including:
Instead, what has been provided includes:
None of which are sufficient to validate the underlying HH or register-based billing.
Why This Matters
Half-Hourly billing is entirely dependent on data integrity. If the underlying data is:
The billing becomes unverifiable.
And if invoices are labelled “Actual” when they are not based on actual settlement data, that raises a fundamental question: On what basis are customers being charged?
A Wider Industry Question
These cases raise a much bigger issue: How many of PE (Pozitive Energy) Solutions’ customers are being billed using estimated (E) or unverified data, whilst invoices are labelled as “Actual”? If this is not isolated, it represents a serious risk to UK businesses because most customers:
That assumption may be costing £££s for business customers of PE (Pozitive Energy) Solutions, particularly where billing cannot be validated against underlying data.
Final Thought
I don’t work for the energy suppliers. I work for my clients. When something doesn’t stack up, I will challenge it with evidence.
Right now, based on these cases, PE (Pozitive Energy) Solutions does not pass the billing test.
If you’re a Pozitive business customer, you should be asking them for:
If they cannot provide it, you need to ask why.
And if you suspect that you may have been overcharged by Pozitive, we can help you determine if you have and, more importantly, get that money back for your business.
