Octopus Energy Billing Correction and Institutional Remedy Following Evidence Architecture

An energy customer experienced prolonged incorrect billing due to inconsistent gas meter records and administrative failures across supplier systems and the national gas database. Relevant evidentiary records existed across correspondence, meter readings, supplier billing records, and institutional communications; however, the evidentiary material remained fragmented and unstructured.

Despite the presence of material evidence, fragmented records prevented clear identification of:

• the factual sequence of events (meter installation, opening read, subsequent reads, estimation periods)
• evidentiary relationships between national database entries and supplier billing records
• procedural inconsistencies and delays affecting corrective action

This limited effective institutional review and delayed correction of billing methodology.

Evidence was reconstructed into structured Evidence Architecture suitable for regulatory adjudication, including:

• timeline reconstruction of meter events, reads, and billing periods
• evidentiary relationship mapping between supplier records and national database records
• structured presentation of inconsistencies supporting institutional review and remedy definition

This transformed fragmented information into a clear, verifiable evidentiary framework for regulatory decision-making.

Following review by the Energy Ombudsman (EG020469-25), Octopus Energy Limited was required to implement remedies including:

• applying a £200 goodwill credit as recognition of service shortfalls
• requesting updates to national database records to correct meter details
• contacting the customer to arrange a gas meter exchange after database update
• confirming in writing that rebilling would be performed using corrected opening and daily usage basis
• issuing a formal written apology

This outcome demonstrates how structured evidence architecture enables regulators to identify institutional failures and require corrective action.

This case demonstrates how structured Evidence Architecture enables effective institutional review, evidentiary clarity, and enforceable corrective actions. When evidence is reconstructed into a verifiable structure, regulators can operate on clear factual foundations and deliver consistent remedies.

This evidence architecture was developed prior to any court escalation. Polydigi operates at the critical pre-legal stage: structuring fragmented evidence into a clear system that enables regulators, institutions, and legal professionals to act decisively and consistently.