Yes, I did my own reading. And it was correct i.e. 9639. Or to be exact 009639. The reading that they had reported however was 09639 - note the missing "0" in their reading. So their system thought the reading was not 009639 but 096390 i.e. the decimal point was in the wrong place. Hence the incorrect charge - about a factor of ten too high!
wHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
ReplyDeleteAre you running a funfair off your meter?!!!
Christ... Mine's about £75 per quarter...
ReplyDeleteDarian
I think it's a mistake. I mean, I'd have to have been running a small sub-station to use that much juice!
ReplyDeleteThe previous reads 97698 (5 digits); the latest is 9639 (4 digits)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the latest should be 99639, but that would still be =~ 2000 units and =~ £200.
I take it you've done a reading yourself!
Yes, I did my own reading. And it was correct i.e. 9639. Or to be exact 009639. The reading that they had reported however was 09639 - note the missing "0" in their reading. So their system thought the reading was not 009639 but 096390 i.e. the decimal point was in the wrong place. Hence the incorrect charge - about a factor of ten too high!
ReplyDelete