EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules
Comments
-
Well that is different from my Midata which (only) shows previous kWhrs and future costs (and the future costs do not agree for the stated previous kWhrs).
Yep, good spot. :T Column E is energy usage over last 12 months and F is forecast cost. However, my actual usage was when I was on Fixed Saver tariff and forecast cost is for new Blue tariff. So doing the maths, based on Blue prices, the new tariff forecast cost is derived from my actual previous kWh, therefore forecast kWh = actual kWh with forecast cost reflecting new tariff price. As I said, shame they can't use that for new DD calculation.604!0 -
Just an "insult"? An excessive projected cost improves cash-flow which could be used to influence the competitiveness of current tariff offers in the marketplace. It is an "insult" is that Consumer Focus in its "death throws" (the very same Consumer Focus that publicly trumpeted its role in E.ON "spring alignment") and the "IME facile" Ofgem consumer affairs directorate seem disinterested.
It is quite hard to find understandable information about gas AQ (not electricity EAC thanks to Terry), but I *think* I found previously that AQ is only updated annually in August and is 18 months out of date. I speculate AQ is still, at least partially, reflecting the very severe winter 2 years ago.
Anyway, Edf appear to be in breach of their own payment scheme. It is clearly documented as an 'annual review' plus the possibility of one [only] interim review, let us assume mid-period. While there needs to be a "projected cost", given a mid-term interim review the previous 12 months actual usage would be a perfectly reasonable basis.
There is a clear issue. The motive however remain unclear and I think will remain unclear until the Ofgem consumer affairs directorate blinks in the spotlight of party political scrutiny. Consumer Focus is a goner and IMO deservedly so.
This, I hope will explain the gas AQ calculation.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2bb0EDVJrDkJ:www.gasgovernance.co.uk/sites/default/files/Annual%2520Quantity%2520BRD%2520v0.6%2520clean.pdf+annual+quantity+gas&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjeG64qer-8ONonUxpS_Im-0hSTDvGt6V2KiOfnDm2WUfk2Vv8lpORgoPbMnEeoqMxKL63BSQ2CPFX7bXwUhFbvCqOb7Ug6pOvOIASlSXrr2Gj4Rh8Y-kq1UCmS1pZ4t5FavRbM&sig=AHIEtbQ5xIlYczfVkqQH8YuE97mBH4Ix0Q
This doc is for the "rolling AQ" which was intended to improve accuracy as the doc acknowledges that the AQ is based on historic data. I haven't gone through it all but it does include processes which hopefully explain how the AQ is calculated.:rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:0 -
This, I hope will explain the gas AQ calculation.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2bb0EDVJrDkJ:www.gasgovernance.co.uk/sites/default/files/Annual%2520Quantity%2520BRD%2520v0.6%2520clean.pdf+annual+quantity+gas&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjeG64qer-8ONonUxpS_Im-0hSTDvGt6V2KiOfnDm2WUfk2Vv8lpORgoPbMnEeoqMxKL63BSQ2CPFX7bXwUhFbvCqOb7Ug6pOvOIASlSXrr2Gj4Rh8Y-kq1UCmS1pZ4t5FavRbM&sig=AHIEtbQ5xIlYczfVkqQH8YuE97mBH4Ix0Q
This doc is for the "rolling AQ" which was intended to improve accuracy as the doc acknowledges that the AQ is based on historic data....
Do you mean "is" or "was"? Given the document is v0.6 and dated 28/10/2011 I'm guessing implementation is still some way off?
One clause is shocking in it's potential, "reads used for AQ calculation are 2 reads minimum of 9 months and max of 36 months apart"
Well that could capture the last really severe winter.
Anyway posters are pointing out that Edf are projecting future consumption between 5% and 30% in excess of the previous 12 months actual consumption. We still don't have an answer where that excess comes from. In submitting "regular" reads over more than a year I cannot recall ever seeing more than 1 meter reader read on the system. Are customer only reads used for AQ (or conveniently ignored)?
Again there is a possible serious competition issue. Switches include an initial payment "quotation". It may be self-certification by the customer but IMV it is still a "quotation", yet 12 months ago my initial (and quoted for) "accurate" projection was subsequently substituted, unilaterally and without the courtesy of being so informed, by an undisclosed projection possibly up to 36 months out of date. How can that be either accurate or fair. A clear SLC27 fail IMV.0 -
I'm not sure on that projects status to be honest, I was just hoping it might contain current calculation processes because its a lot more difficult to find anything on AQ than on the elec equivalents.
Customer reads are firm reads so should be entered but the problem is that you give them to your supplier. Now, I'm not as sure with gas but I can definitely tell you for elec that over the years some suppliers have been found to be non compliant with the elec BSC for not passing these on. The same has been shown for PPM reads received over the network, although I recall these can be issued once per month to save on lots of close validations.
So, the question really is "is my supplier actually doing this?". This is out of your view and only the supplier could confirm it by checking they sent it and received it back. It must come back set to Valid or it has no impact.
Its certainly been true over the years that suppliers had little care for validation of customer reads and there was an old brigade view that "it looks good to us so we will bill it and not care about validation". Now suppliers are becoming more efficient with their bottom line (six sigma & continuous improvement have been pushed into the sector over the past 5 or so years) they have found that they could be paying higher estimates themselves so there has been a recent push to get data correct. Prior to this,a project known as The 97% Project also kick started these types of considerations as it mandated all parties to be 97%+ accurate or face action and the easiest way to achieve this was to get reads validated.:rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:0 -
Bumping this in the context of current news.
Edf has been ahead of the curve since Blue with a competitive tariff, a "2 winter fix", no early termination charges and notification of a cheaper tariff.
But at the same time stands accused of unsubstantiated excessive projected consumption and sudden unexpected direct debit hikes based on unseen factors that the Ofgem Consumer Affairs Directorate to my personal knowledge wasn't interested in and to others certain knowledge neither was the Energy Ombudsman.
And Edf are hardly alone on the issue.
Where is Cameron/Ofgem on that?0 -
I appealed the original adjudication by the EO of my complaint on the grounds of the award and also that the adjudicaation was muddled. This was even though the principal point was won.
The bizarre process meant a further 8 week delay to obtain information which should be produced as routine according to the Regulations. Apparently,an Ombudsman only reviews Appeals. the 8 week period is up at the end of the month.
In the wider context,the 'Competition Model' clearly failed and has been redundant for many years on both Price and Customer Service. Both have deteriorated massively. Regulation from the customer viewpoint is innefective slow and unsatisfactory even to the bleeding obvious issues. EDF for example, should have been closed down to new customers at the height of their IT System botch. That would have been Regulation.
My own enthusiasm is dented if not crushed, so even when diligent activists, feel there is little hope then I can only envisage worse to come.
Finally,the Govt,after years of staring it in the face have noticed that the poorer end of society has been subsidising the savvy. It has been a shameful period for the provision of an essential commodity. The latest proposals may produce a more level playing field but I can't see price competition increasing because there are no real price differentiators. All an expensive waste of time and resource.
DD Management or mismanagement has been present since day 1 and has been a game well played by the Suppliers. An Ofgem Review in 2010 was pathetically enforced and inaction continues with little appetite to do so. After all, for many customers this is the main interface issue with Suppliers.
I personally would renationalise what remains.0 -
-
click on the 'Update My Details' link on the left, then click the 'Account Details' tab and you will see the MiData link at the bottom of the page.604!0
-
Just when I thought they were (slowly) getting there. Perhaps a "Halloween mode" in the computers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-2228071/EDF-Energy-hiked-4-5-times-I-needed-pay.html0 -
You have to admire the brazen cheek. A typical detatched cop out from a very flaky outfit.
'Initially Isobel was told that the price increase was due to a reassessment of her mother’s bill and that ‘computers rarely make a mistake’.
I was taught in my first week at work never to say anything like this.:rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards