EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

I've put the link on the previous page about how to escalate them. They are a professional member of a body as stated in the post, but the initial stage is a complaint that gets investigated via their quoted process.

At the end of the day, you're only asking "how are you calculating my DD" and that's just a set of variables in a system with the possibility of a manual rejection triggering a response from an operator.

System wise, the supplier will have documentation. For a start, they've gone into SAP and that is well known for having for too much documentation!

The manual operation, would mean a local working practice that is a common document issued to their staff.

The fact they can't explain it is not the issue, its more likely someone has given up due to complexity or a commercial decision to prevent your complaint being discussed.

The EO can argue that how they implemented SAP is a commercial decision, but if the SLC states you are entitled to know how this one function works...Ofgem or the EO should be able to demand it.

I think something you need to consider is the fact the EO knows they are getting involved in something that is a known market issue affecting many and they don't want to saddle themselves with it.

One thing to consider is the wording of a complaint. If you said you want to know how the supplier has built the system to work they hide behind commercial decisions, but what if you said it from a different angle such as "my DD has been set too high and they won't tell me why?". Then it becomes about you and not their known system mess.

SAP is likely to become more of an issue and Ofgem should really have someone assigned to govern it.

I think their response is a cop out and they seem to think you should be championing something for all customers, when really you want to sort your own issue out.

snowcat53 wrote: »

You are right. I will return to Ofgem now armed with the EO's letter...

Looking again at my last comment and also taking into account Backfoot's "...the EO is not fit for purpose, if they consider breaching License Conditions is a commercial decision...", without knowing the exact issue you referred, I am troubled by the EO approach.

They seem to be adjudicating an issue without consideration of the issue. That is hardly a credible position for an ombudsman to adopt (unless they have already fully investigated an identical referral and have indeed established "commercial decision").

We don't know this is a "commercial decision". On the contrary, the Edf Energy public domain information on Direct Debit does not support that. We only know that at the moment of "deadlock" the Edf Energy Customer Services Director has been unable to satisfy a specific customer concern within 8 weeks. There is a clear issue there for the EO to investigate. After EO investigation, should it be determined that the issue is indeed a "commercial decision", but on the face of it contrary to regulations, that is what should be reported (to Ofgem).

In my case I embarked on the Edf Energy customer relationship, no differently from every preceeding supplier, determined to pay the initial monthly payment at transfer as calculated by the switching comparison (if necessary for 12 months) and then an amount reflective of "actual current consumption" (until 2014). With considerable effort I now have a payment exactly reflective of my "actual current consumption". Had it gone to the EO my complaint would have been that I calculate the payment to be "£xx" (for the following reasons), but Edf are imposing "£yy" (and won't explain the calculation).

IME Edf Energy doesn't contest an informed calculation, but it shouldn't be be necessary to continually challenge the supplier calculation and I suspect too many customers accept an unsubstantiated calculation without challange. That's potentially "free money" for Edf Energy, therefore a competition issue. Yes I realise Consumer Focus has been marginalised, a pity, but also a great pity they are departing without even a whimper.

So maybe consider a slightly different tack with the EO?

Back foot, that certainly is bogus.

SLC31A does omit them from providing illustrations of consumption and bill values until you reach 12 months, hence providing a forecast of the next 12. SLC27 is very clear in stating that a fixed DD can vary but any variation must be explained clearly to the customer.

...clearly doesn't mean "trust us, we've done our sums"...

Surely, if you were shuffling paper at Ofgem this would be a slam dunk?