EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

wakeupalarm wrote: »

Just to be clear they do have correct actual readings for the last year taken by their own meter reader, 364 days difference between the two readings. I know they are correct because I noted them down at the same time. They have put on my annual summary statement a different figure 10% higher for my actual usage for the last year and then used this same 10% higher figure for next years predictions.

I rang them up, and the CS adviser didn't know why they had put a different figure down. He didn't put up any resistance so we agreed to put my DD 10% lower then last years amount, so sorted until their next review.

Next time they mess about I'll asked them to explain how they have calculated my DD to conform with SLC27.14 and SLC27.15.

The industry consumption figures are subject to weather calculations. That may explain the increase.

The difference between 2 readings is not the full picture in elec, there are some smoothing factors applied which can cause the advance between the two to differ. So, in this scenario the supplier always charges you the difference between the two readings but the data entered into the consumption in the industry settlement is based on the final figure after the smoothing factors. So, this could cause a projection to differ to what it would be based on advances alone.

It could always just be a variation in EDF's new SAP billing system that allows them to take your forecast and add X % to make more money upfront.

It will be interesting to see if everyone has the same % issue and whether it moves over future years at the same rate which would indicate a use of a variable on their side only.

In my Annual Review of 2nd October based on a year's actual readings EDF has forecast my gas consumption will be 30% more next year and increased the DD accordingly. Glad I'm leaving them as the time & effort to sort it is tiresome.

victor2 wrote: »

For a major supplier to say "we expect you to use 30% more gas in the coming year" is just an insult.

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.

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

... Whilst I expected the price to increase slightly for the more expensive tariff the annoyance is that the forecast increase in gas consumption was kWh not £ based. No explanation as to why. Equally galling when the MiData spreadsheet on the same date showed a forecast...

Indeed. Edf declined my "invitatation" to explain. I didn't pursue the failure to explain as my objective was to retain my current (and accurate) payment. TBH that has never proved difficult.

Regarding Midata, there are only two relevant data items, a rolling 12 month "actual", which in my case appears to be accurate and a individual fuel "cost projection" (the estimated cost in pound and pence for the next 12 months if you stayed on the same tariff the tariff stayed the same (e.g. no price rises or price cuts) and if you carried on using the same amount of energy. This could be based on estimates...). What is meant by "same amount of energy"? Same as what?

The VAT/discount/standing charge treatment or allocation is not explained which makes accurate comparison impossible. When I complained about the Midata cost inaccuracy it was explained as early problems affecting some accounts. It is still "inaccurate".

It is interesting that Midata projects 12 months back and 12 months forward, but the DD is based on an 'annual review' date which likely less than 12 months ahead. So is Midata designed to explain or to confuse?

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

... it was showing ... forecast usage in kWh,

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).