Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

spiro · 20 July 2012 at 12:19PM

I haven't seen the latest draft SLCs but because of Green Deal, they are making changes such that consumption is not required before a deemed contract as seen as existing. Basically ownership will cause a deemed contract to exist even if you take ownership weeks before you move in.

undaunted · 20 July 2012 at 1:11PM

That seems nonsensical / unworkable to me - if there is an existing owner / occupier they will have a contract in place, you surely cant have different contracts for one service running with two unrelated parties.

Even if the property were empty (assuming the contract doesnt have standing charges) what would you be contracting and billing for without consumption?

Its about time somebody got a grip on the lot of them - suppliers and so called "Regulator" alike

chanz4 · 20 July 2012 at 9:37PM

yup bring back disconnection when someone moves out.

Terrylw1 · 20 July 2012 at 10:34PM

spiro wrote: »

I haven't seen the latest draft SLCs but because of Green Deal, they are making changes such that consumption is not required before a deemed contract as seen as existing. Basically ownership will cause a deemed contract to exist even if you take ownership weeks before you move in.

Basically, what's already there so its a tightening up to finally close the door on these cases.

Terrylw1 · 20 July 2012 at 10:44PM

undaunted wrote: »

That seems nonsensical / unworkable to me - if there is an existing owner / occupier they will have a contract in place, you surely cant have different contracts for one service running with two unrelated parties.

Even if the property were empty (assuming the contract doesnt have standing charges) what would you be contracting and billing for without consumption?

Its about time somebody got a grip on the lot of them - suppliers and so called "Regulator" alike

But this is how its always been, even before deregulation.

If you take legal ownership, its your property and the only consumption taking place (not considering tampering, squatters, etc) is your usage.

It falls inline with Ofgem's stance on standing charge.

In terms of vacant properties, suppliers still have obligations to take readings, change meters, investigate issues, etc. The alternate is for suppliers to start sending you the bill for all these jobs which they mostly swallow up.

Smart metering will also help them given they want to use this technology to help with change of occupier processes.

Terrylw1 · 20 July 2012 at 10:54PM

spiro wrote: »

This would cost somewhere in the order of £10-£50,000,000 to change MPAS.

They already do it with retrospective amendment in some cases.

When that MAP change was first introduced years ago, distributors wanted £250 per retrospective amendment, but suppliers stated they could not justify paying that figure for the benefit it would bring in settlement recovery. Also, there was no way it would really cost that much to back out record updates to insert the change and then reapply the later updates.

I don't agree with the change anyway Spiro, the SLC change is much better. Removing the Deemed contract could cause too much damage to settlement processes which are in too much of a mess anyway, plus what about the emergency jobs suppliers do? Customers can't have it both ways.

To get around all this, remove objections and allow Deemed customers to enter into a fixed contract for X days before the ETC becomes applicable thus allowing them time to move. The only other way is a same day switch on a change of tenancy which can be done technically, its the contract that won't allow it due to the cooling off period. Again, customers can't have it both ways.

Terrylw1 · 20 July 2012 at 11:07PM

undaunted wrote: »

I haven't at the moment but will be able to find out. In the meantime as I recall there were several aspects to it, not just some off hand comment by a junior.

There was reference to definitions of terms in legislation and consultation papers which are clearly made and disconnection essentially meaning to stop supply

Ofgem reporting requirements which state disconnections are not to be interpreted as removal of the meter etc but that disconnection, de-energisation, removal of fuse etc must all be included.

In the document re customers in debt and proposals referred to above they suggested Ofgem could not initiate a change in MRA it was for the parties involved to do to do (didn't specify who other than suppliers this includes?) but then went on to suggest that if agreement could not be reached an SLC could however be made to invalidate the MRA. Presumably this was never followed up on.

There were at least two, maybe three documents that referred to a need for consumption for deemed contract.

I would imagine that for a Judge the only questions to determine are law and not industry view point & in response to Npowers challenge to prove that they were legally entitled to have the supply removed upon request the defendant has also produced a Supreme Court Appeal decision that would seem to provide it.

Me thinks the s**t may therefore be about to hit the fan!

Aside from the issues leading to the disconnection, the judge just needs to determine whether de-energising a site invalidates a Deemed contract. The judge would also need to consider that if it did who on earth is going to refit the fuse...since the customer would have to wait weeks for a supply registration to take place.

Its not in the customers interest to invalidate it...you would be worse off. Removing customer objections would have let this customer leave and only have to sort out the bill up to that point as opposed to all this extra aggravation of the situation.

In terms of MRA change, there is a process but it would also mean BSC changes. Parties can submit a proposal and let the industry change/review processes kick in. The proposal can also be initiated by the governing body or even cone via another such as Ofgem who would propose/introduce something which has an impact on another licence.

In terms of invalidating the MRA, BSC, etc...that's already within their power and stated in the SLC. That doesn't mean that what they override would happen logistically, it would be a "fudge" and Ofgem can't break the principles of payment for supply or the whole system falls down. Anything affecting collection of settlement would very quickly go up to someone more senior than them.

undaunted · 21 July 2012 at 3:28PM

chanz4 wrote: »

yup bring back disconnection when someone moves out.

Not actually generally likely to be necessary if these people did their jobs more efficiently but personally I'd far rather see that the the present poorly managed & regulated system

undaunted · 21 July 2012 at 3:31PM

Terrylw1 wrote: »

But this is how its always been, even before deregulation.

If you take legal ownership, its your property and the only consumption taking place (not considering tampering, squatters, etc) is your usage.

It falls inline with Ofgem's stance on standing charge.

In terms of vacant properties, suppliers still have obligations to take readings, change meters, investigate issues, etc. The alternate is for suppliers to start sending you the bill for all these jobs which they mostly swallow up.

Smart metering will also help them given they want to use this technology to help with change of occupier processes.

When has there ever been a system where you had two contracts with different people? ie, if I've understood what is suggested above correctly you could have

a contract of some form in place with an occupier / tenant

a deemed contract in place with someone taking ownership but not in occupation

undaunted · 21 July 2012 at 3:36PM

In this case, as far as I can see they wont be able to decide otherwise as Npowers own Standard terms state that if supply is cut off and no longer required the contract is terminated.

Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free