British Gas: Can't Manage Contractual Changes

Cardew

filmnoir wrote: »

Either way what would a large company pick? A few disgruntled customers who knows the small print of the wacking great £100k invoice for changes to an IT system.

If it were ever proven that a large company deliberately chose to ignore a known problem in their accounting system, that caused customers to be financially disadvantaged, the Regulator would hammer them.

On similar, but far more serious note, it is like the case with the Ford Motor Company that Ralph Nader exposed.

The Ford Pinto had a known design defect that caused the fuel tank to split in a rear end shunt and catch fire. An internal letter was leaked where Ford accountants calculated a recall program to modify the cars would cost $xx million.

They also calculated that there would be x accidents a year with people killed/injured and the cost if sued would be much less than the $xxmillion - so they did nothing to recall the cars.

The point being that it would be inevitable that a 'whistle Blower' would expose any company who took the action you suggest.

filmnoir

Cardew wrote: »

The point being that it would be inevitable that a 'whistle Blower' would expose any company who took the action you suggest.

True, but alot go un whistle blowed! And not just in the utility industry.
A good one recently was the VAT rate reduction. There was an increase in companies looking for specialist as systems were fixed at 17.5% or needed one decimal place. And I know some companies instead of meeting the deadline chose more dubious methods.

This is why I think the league tabling now of customer type of complaints is crucial to influence change at regulation. As they are reported and suppliers that are poor performers are targeted OFGEM can delve more deeply into goings on than they can currently.

filmnoir

The supplier has to inform consumers if prices are increasing. You must be given notice before the end of 65 working days after the date of the price rise. This allows suppliers to provide notification with quarterly bills.

Domestic consumers also have to be told that they have the right to terminate the contract (by switching to another supplier). You have 10 working days after being told about the rise to tell the supplier you wish to end the contract. If you do this, the supplier should not apply the price rise. If you tell the supplier of your wish to transfer but then don't, the price rises will catch up. The transfer process must begin within 15 working days of the notification being received.

The provision was adopted as a result of an EU Directive that sought to harmonise the practice across the European Union. It was preferred to provide notice of a price rise before being implemented but legally this was not possible following the directive. However, protection for consumers who did not want to be bound by any new retrospective price increase was retained in the licence change.

The licence condition that covers this issue provides that if a consumer does not wish to accept these new prices they can be avoided. To do this the customer must notify the supplier within 10 working days of becoming aware of the change that they wish to switch to an alternate energy supplier. Following this the existing supplier must receive, within a further 15 working days, a notice under the transfer procedure from another supplier that it is going to take over that consumer’s supply arrangement. The old supplier cannot then charge the consumer at the new higher price for the period of the price change up to the date they leave.

Took this from consumer focus. A big part of this does rely in your new supplier instigating the change of supply within 15 days. However quite interesting you can post date registrations indefinatley for the future and technically keep a lower price.

SwanJon

As far as I am aware, the customer must inform the supplier that they intend to leave because of the price rise to stay on the pre-change tariff, they can't rely on their new supplier to do it (as in filmnoir's post)

JayMT

Very interesting information in this thread!

I still haven't received a letter from BG following the recent price increase to Click 5.

I think they're all as bad as each other though.

Eon couldn't provide a final bill calculated correctly when I left them in the summer, they had to deal with the refund 'by hand'. As documented elsewhere, their frontline staff knew nothing about this 65 day clause.

Same goes for npower, who have made a catalogue of errors dealing with my account in my (very) short time with them.

backfoot

filmnoir wrote: »

And youll find that most of the new systems like SAP (Which most domestic suppliers are prompting for) require very expensive external contractors to perform the changes, or 'old' systems where the knowledge is contained to a handful of people in the country who therefore charge high fees. Either way what would a large company pick? A few disgruntled customers who knows the small print of the wacking great £100k invoice for changes to an IT system.



Where did I say deliberatley swindle? I said its no different than spotting a mistake in change given. Any service or product I pay for I ensure its correct I dont presume just because Im paying for it it must be right!

This is such a nonsense argument. The SAP system should have been properly specified with a known business requirement. If BG,their Consultants or Business Testing Team missed it,then that's their fault.You can't then transmit the problem to Customers and say they will have to lump it because it's going to cost £100k from our net profit.They have an obligation to get it right first time both under their license conditions and their own Code of Practice on Accurate Billing.

On the second point,you should reread the analogy you drew.It was you that said ' Its not different then being short changed in a shop, unless you point it out...IMHO' .

The point is that BG knew my bill should be calculated at lower prices, (they confirmed it twice in writing) yet chose to bill normally at higher prices. A shop may shortchange you accidentally and clearly you should be on guard.The difference is that cash is easier to check but for many (not me) checking energy bills can be quite difficult.

backfoot

The incorrect billing caused an overcharge of £62.

BG have admitted that they do not have an adequate system to deal with this. They have a backlog of similar cases and have to deal with them manually.

Had I not detected the error, they would not have rectified it.:eek:

As usual no one there seems to care.:o