We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NPower gas 'sculpting'
Options
Comments
-
Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part.
I understand the bit about the 4,572 units in a year and the sculpting / suspension of sculpting screwing the numbers quite a lot (1,900+ units in my case).
What i meant was:
Can people who were overcharged because of the suspension / reimplementation of sculpting over the 4,572 units (in a year) accept the "poor customer service excuse money foboff"
i.e. heres some cash because we were bad at Customer Service.
Then at a later date should some legal entity dictate that npower are in the wrong over the too many higher units part (which they didn't admit liability to when they paid out on poor customer service) also claim the money again?
I'm still not sure i'm making myself clear but i know what i mean.
I was trying to work out if NPower might be setting them self up to be double dipped by people they gave money to for "poor customer service" whilst admitting no liability for the overcharging on primary units in a given year.
Your favourite excuse also happens to be my own :eek:0 -
I'm still not sure i'm making myself clear but i know what i mean.
I was trying to work out if NPower might be setting them self up to be double dipped by people they gave money to for "poor customer service" whilst admitting no liability for the overcharging on primary units in a given year.
I understand fully what you are saying and the same thought had crossed my mind on several occasions. I think the opinion of a legal eagle is needed here.
To my mind if you are claiming for specific amounts of overcharging and you are offered a payment which only reflects 'poor customer service' and is offered as a sign of 'goodwill', then you are not having your claim addressed or met. However the offer made to you will be with the condition of no acceptance of liability and will be in full and final settlement of your claim. By accepting their offer under those conditions it may be that (legally) you bar yourself from any other related claim. Or it may not. Legal opinion is needed.
What I think you could quite properly do is inform them that you accept their apology and the offered compensation for their poor customer service. However point out that this does not address the overcharging issue and that you still require to be re-imbursed the amount you claim to have been overcharged. Inform them that acceptance of their offer does not constitute a full and final settlement and that you still intend to press for repayment of the overcharged amount. Do not encash or accept any payment they send you at this point.
Their response is likely to be to withdraw their offer which will leave you back at square one.
You will have to consider whether the offer they make you (as full and final payment) is worth your while accepting or not. If you do, as already mentioned, this may end any further action you may wish to take in the future.
Sometimes I wish I'd gone to [strike]law[/strike] school.0 -
Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part.
I understand the bit about the 4,572 units in a year and the sculpting / suspension of sculpting screwing the numbers quite a lot (1,900+ units in my case).
What i meant was:
Can people who were overcharged because of the suspension / reimplementation of sculpting over the 4,572 units (in a year) accept the "poor customer service excuse money foboff"
i.e. heres some cash because we were bad at Customer Service.
Then at a later date should some legal entity dictate that npower are in the wrong over the too many higher units part (which they didn't admit liability to when they paid out on poor customer service) also claim the money again?
I'm still not sure i'm making myself clear but i know what i mean.
I was trying to work out if NPower might be setting them self up to be double dipped by people they gave money to for "poor customer service" whilst admitting no liability for the overcharging on primary units in a given year.
Your favourite excuse also happens to be my own :eek:
I see what you mean!
It is to be hoped that as a result of DD's actions and/or Regulator intervention, that NPower will be forced to make an automatic refund* to the couple of million customers they overcharged, i.e. without the vast majority(who have never heard of this issue) needing to claim.
I suspect in this case it would be too difficult for Npower to single out anyone who had accepted a 'without admission' settlement and hence they would 'double dip'!!
*A precedent for an automatic refund was set by the water Regulator with Severn Trent and all customers got a refund for a 'Technical' overcharge.0 -
In post #625 Meggsy told us she had received a “goodwill” cheque for £75 from Npower, and she kindly reproduced the letter that came with it. She added that her claim was for a higher sum.
In response, in post #626 I said “It is interesting that the letter did not use the words “in full and final settlement” when enclosing the cheque. I have always understood that unless such words were used (so as to indicate that the recipient by banking the cheque had accepted the offer to settle at that lesser amount) one could treat the cheque as part payment, bank it, and then go gunning for the balance.”
In other words, if the letter from Npower to Meggsy had included the customary words “in full and final settlement” it would have had the same effect as saying, “if you bank this cheque, you will be deemed to have accepted our offer to settle this matter at this lower figure”.
However, Meggsy’s letter did not contain those hallowed words, nor has it any other words that might be said to constitute such an offer of settlement. Can Npower successfully argue that such words could be implied even though they are not written into the letter? But wouldn’t that be like asking is it possible to make a contractual offer (capable of legally binding acceptance) without actually making it? And in fact the answer must surely be a resounding “No”.
For any binding contract, there has to be an offer and an acceptance. If someone owes you say £100 and sends you a cheque for £50 with no accompanying letter at all, then you would be perfectly entitled to treat the £50 as part payment of the debt, and claim or sue for the other £50.
I see no difference between that obvious scenario and Meggsy’s letter from Npower; which contained no specific offer of settlement either. I find it impossible to imagine any circumstances where a court would imply any offer of a binding settlement where none is specifically made. The mere act of sending a cheque means what? People send cheques every day for a variety of reasons.
On the other hand, if an employer owes someone outstanding wages or holiday pay, and sends a cheque for a lesser amount with a letter containing the magic words “in full and final settlement” the Employment Tribunal will ignore that wording even though the cheque has been banked; and order the employer to pay the balance. So far from the courts being willing to imply a settlement (when there is no wording), here we have a situation (employment law) where even with the required wording the contract of settlement would still be overruled. While this is specific to employer employee disputes, I really can’t see Npower dragging the courts in the opposite direction when they have put in no such wording at all. Can you?
Why didn’t Npower’s management add the said words “in full and final settlement” to their letter? Of course we all have no doubt that it was because they feared that if they had; such words might later be construed as an admission. And (as stated many times in this thread) if Npower was seen to have admitted the claim (even once) the game would be up.
So, instead they purport to make “goodwill” payments, claiming to address other matters as reasons for these goodwill payments (such delays and poor service etc). The trouble is (as Direct Debacle rightly points out) that means that Npower has not officially addressed the claim itself, and so there is no link between the reason given for the goodwill payment and the main issue whatever. In fact giving a non-related reason for the payment was probably Npower’s equivalent of shooting itself in the foot.
I personally can see no reason why anyone receiving such a cheque should treat it as anything to do with their claim when Npower’s own letter says it isn’t. In fact in essence it says it is a gift. What else is a goodwill payment? At the very least I see no reason not to treat it as part payment, and then claim the balance.
Now while a court might not be all that happy about giving judgment to someone taking Npower to court for the whole overcharging claim, who has already received and banked a “goodwill” payment (allegedly addressing a different matter) let’s remember that if Npower asks the court for fair play in this matter the court will also consider the somewhat dubious conduct of Npower itself.
In other words while the court would have a claimant (for the full amount) who is claiming more than they have actually lost (taking into account the goodwill payment) it is faced with a company which has refused to admit the obvious - thrown one phoney excuse after another at its customers - and has now found its silly letters have backfired. I rather think a court would prefer to decide against Npower. Don’t you? It is after all a major company/organisation and should have known better (and treated its customers much better).
And if Ofgem subsequently orders Npower to reimburse every affected customer, the position still surely applies that any “goodwill” payments were stated by Npower to be for other reasons. How can Npower declare to Ofgem on say Monday the payment was in effect a gift, and by say Friday claim it was part payment of the very claim it denied? Npower can’t have it both ways.
So it looks like some lucky people may “double dip” as Alleycat suggests and come out of this ahead of the game. I really do hope so. The more the merrier; but to stand a chance of “double dipping” those who haven’t yet complained need to get a move on. It would also be nice if folks who win in court and obtain full payment could also get paid again under a later Ofgem order, but I think that is a bridge too far.0 -
A technical issue. For a while now I have been wanting to copy and paste word docs on here but each time I do I get this:
Understanding your gas bill
Our credit prices are normally based on two rates: primary and secondary. The primary rate applies to a maximum of 4572 kWh (units) of gas that you may use throughout any continuous period of 12 months. Above this volume, we charge at the secondary rate which is cheaper.
Primary rate gas is charged across the 12 months on a seasonally adjusted basis.....,
Anyone know how I can do it without all the 'font' stuff appearing. I have long documents and would take hours to clean up manually.0 -
DirectDebacle wrote: »A technical issue. For a while now I have been wanting to copy and paste word docs on here
[...]
Anyone know how I can do it without all the 'font' stuff appearing. I have long documents and would take hours to clean up manually.
Choose 'Paste Special...' instead of 'Paste' from the Edit menu. Then choose the 'Unformatted Text' option.0 -
DirectDebacle wrote: »A technical issue. For a while now I have been wanting to copy and paste word docs on here but each time I do I get this:
Anyone know how I can do it without all the 'font' stuff appearing. I have long documents and would take hours to clean up manually.
I is
the expert. on this DD all you do is cut and paste
into a NEW word document.
Sorry couldn't resist!
When this has happened to me, I have cut and pasted the extract into a blank new word document, 'select all' and played with that document0 -
-
Still haven't got the hang of getting tables to look right in these posts but below is a draft of a new How To Work Out Your Gas Bill leaflet npower are allegedly going to send customers. It looks great and I can imagine Ofgem, the new Energywatch thing, the ERA, Help the Aged, CAB etc are all going to go completely over the top with their praise for such a simple and well explained billing system. No doubt it won't be long before all the other energy companies follow suit.
"In the tariff review introduced from 1 October 2004 seasonal weighting of the primary block units was introduced. This change, together with the rise in unit rates, meant that a new charging year began from 1 October 2004. The proportion of the 4,572 kWh annual primary block charged each month from that point until 30 April 2007 was as follows:
Monthly Month Proportion
January 13.8
February 13.6
March 12.2
April 9.8
May 7.1
June 4.2
July 2.4
August 2.4
September 4.2
October 7.3
November 10.3
December 12.7
Total 100%
In the 30 April 2007 tariff review seasonal weighting was suspended and 381 primary kWh per month applied until 31 October 2007.
After that date we reverted to seasonally weighting primary block units using the new profile shown below.
Maximum
Month Primary Units
January 882
February 882
March 272
April 271
May 46
June 46
July 46
August 46
September 46
October 271
November 882
December 882
Total 4572
I have copied below the information we are shortly to include in a new leaflet - "Understanding your gas bill.
We have reviewed and updated this leaflet in part as a result of the issues that you have raised, in an effort to improve the level of information we provide to our customers.
Understanding your gas bill
Our credit prices are normally based on two rates: primary and secondary. The primary rate applies to a maximum of 4572 kWh (units) of gas that you may use throughout any continuous period of 12 months. Above this volume, we charge at the secondary rate which is cheaper.
Primary rate gas is charged across the 12 months on a seasonally adjusted basis, with more primary rate units being charged in the winter months as follows:
Months Maximum units charged at Percentage charged at
primary rate primary rate
per month per month
Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb 882 19.30
March 272 5.94
April, Oct 271 5.93
May, June, July, Aug, Sept 46 1.00
Annual total 4572 100
This does not apply to gas tariffs where we do not apply a primary and secondary rate, e.g. prepayment, or to certain non-standard tariffs, e.g. Tracker and Sign Online v8.
If the whole of the period covered by your bill is after 1 November 2007 the way your bill is calculated is shown below. If you're concerned about an earlier period please ask for the previous version of this leaflet. (I highlighted this.. see end of post)
Why do we charge in this way?
There's no standing charge on our credit tariffs so the primary rate covers the fixed costs we have to pay in supplying gas to you, e.g. distribution and metering costs.
For gas we charge more units at the primary rate during the winter months to reflect the fact that most customers use more gas in the winter, and to ensure that all our customers pay a fair share to cover our fixed costs.
How to work out your gas bill
STEP I
How many units have you used?
If you have an imperial meter with 4
dials, take the number of units used and
multiply it by 2.83. If you have a metric
meter (with 5 dials) there's no need to
do this.
Then multiply the number of units by the Calorific Value and the Correction
Factor and divide by 3.6 (round the answer to 1 decimal place) to give you the total kWhs charged on the bill.
You can find the values for Calorific
Value and Correction Factor on your
bills. If there are no figures available
use these industry standard figures: Calorific Value 40.0
Correction Factor 1.02264
EXAMPLE
For this example, let's assume these are your meter readings:
Previous Meter Read = 48400
Current Meter Read = 48800
So units used is:
48800 - 48400 = 400
Multiply by the Calorific Value:
400 x 40 = 16000
Multiply by the Correction Factor:
16000 x 1.02264 = 16362.24
Divide by 3.6:
16362.24 / 3.6 = 4545.1 kWh
This gives you the total kWh charged on the bill
STEP 2
Work out the number of units to be
charged at the primary and secondary
rate
The primary units will be charged as shown in the table below:
Month Consumption profile
%
November 07 19.30
December 07 19.30
January 08 19.30
February 08 19.30
March 08 5.94
April 08 5.93
May 08 1.00
June 08 1.00
July 08 1.00
August 08 1.00
September 08 1.00
October 08 5.93
100%
The remaining kWhs would then be charged at the lower secondary rate.
EXAMPLE
For this example, let's assume the bill period is 15/02/08 to 14/05/08
(our example is a quarterly bill - some customers receive a bill every 6 months)
(2a) Work out the 1st month % at the primary rate Take the number of days in the first month and take away the start day of the bill:
1st month = February
29-15 = 14
Divide the answer by the number of days in the month and round to 2 decimal places:
14/29=0.48
(February 2008 was a leap year and had 29 days)
Multiply by the percentage for that month (from the table on the left) and round to 1 decimal place:
0.48 x 19.30 = 9.3%
This equals the first month's proportion of the 4,572 annual threshold.
(2b) Work out the middle month(s) % at the primaryrate
Use the full percentage for each full month (from the table on the left):
2nd month = March = 5.94%
3rd month = April = 5.93%
Total for middle months = 5.94 + 5.93 = 11.87%
This equals the middle months' proportions of the 4,572 annual threshold.
(2c) Work out the last month % at the primary rate Take the last day of the bill, divide by the number of days in the last month and round to 2 decimal places):
4th month = May
14 / 31=0.45
Multiply by the percentage for that month and round to 1 decimal place:
0.45 x 1 = 0.5%
This equals the last month's proportion of the 4,572 annual threshold.
Now calculate the total percentage to be charged at the high rate for this bill
Add all percentages together from steps (2a) to (2c) above:
9.3 + 11.87 + 0.5 = 21.7%
Multiply the total percentage by 4572 (round up to a whole number) to get the KWhs charged at the primary rate:
21.7 x 4572 / 100 = 992
STEP 3 EXAMPLE
Work out the total bill For our example, let's assume our unit rates are:
Primary rate 7.904 pence/kWh
Secondary rate 2.488 pence/kWh
Take the total kWh (from Step 1) and subtract the number of kWh charged at the primary rate (from Step 2) to get the number of kWh charged at the secondary rate:
4545.1 - 992 = 3553.1
Take the number of kWh on the primary rate and multiply by the Primary Rate pence per kWh, then divide by 100 to convert into pounds and pence:
992 x 7.904 / 100 = £78.41
Take the number of kWh on the secondary rate and multiply by the Secondary Rate pence per kWh, then divide by 100 to convert into pounds and pence:
3553.1 x 2.488 / 100 = £88.40
Total before VAT = £78.41 + £88.40 = £166.81
Now multiply by 1.05 to add VAT at 5% £166.81 x 1.05 = £175.15
So the total bill is £175.15
What concerns me is the sentence I highlighted in bold. What was the previous version of this and does anyone have one. I am thinking in terms of them fabricating one of these going back to October, 2004, to cover their tracks, or am I just being cynical.0 -
Thanks for reproducing DD.
Npower are great aren't they - you couldn't make this up.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards