npower, Ofgem and Consumer Focus

Sterling

This new thread holds a copy of a rather lengthy email I sent to Consumer Focus concerning Ofgem’s Announcement on Npower’s overcharging. It is here rather than in the thread to which it relates (npower gas ‘sculpting’) because of its extreme length. In fact that is why it is posted here in three posts as Parts 1, 2 and 3. If you would like to jump to the npower gas ‘sculpting’ thread, for the full story or to make a comment, here is the link.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=822299&page=54

Part 1

To – [Edit - deleted], Consumer Focus

Monday, 23 March 2009

Dear [Edit - deleted]

Subject - Ofgem’s Announcement on Npower’s overcharging

In his email to me on 18th March (in response to mine of 23rd February), Mr Mayo suggested that if I had any further thoughts or contributions I should send them to you.

I have no wish to burden you more than necessary, but as the above matter affects an estimated 2.2 million npower customers, it is clearly of considerable importance to see that Ofgem has investigated the matter fully and as a result reached a decision that upholds its stated fundamental brief of consumer protection.

That does not appear to have happened. Indeed, I believe the decision by Ofgem was perverse, and should be reconsidered as a matter of some urgency.

Furthermore, in his email to me, Mr Mayo said, “…We have been pressing the regulator Ofgem for information relating to their investigation of npower and the basis of the decision and I had hoped to have this by now. Unfortunately this has not been the case…”

Such a delay by Ofgem (despite having completed its investigation) in responding to Mr Mayo as chief executive of Consumer Focus seems totally unjustifiable, especially as Ofgem does not even appear to have extended Mr Mayo courtesy of providing any reason for such delay.

I hope that - by informed npower gas customers, such as myself, writing to Consumer Focus in this way - your organisation will have more facts at its disposal with which to tackle Ofgem on what appears to be serious and even fundamental shortcomings in how Ofgem handled the original complaint from Energywatch.

I believe that Ofgem’s investigation in this matter is inherently flawed because although it liaised directly with npower, its customers had no opportunity to put their case in rebuttal.

I have a number of additional points to make which I hope may be of use to Consumer Focus, and which for ease of reference I have placed in numbered order in the Schedule at the end of this email.

Needless to say, I would be delighted to provide additional information on any of the points contained in the Schedule if you so require. I should add that trying to keep things brief while giving sufficient detail is a tough balancing act (for me at least). Consequently, my list of points is by no means as long as it could be. No doubt some will be points that have been considered by Consumer Focus already, but others, I suspect, will not.

May I also respectfully suggest, if you have not done so already, that you might care to take a look at the Forum thread dealing with this issue on the Moneysavingexpert website.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=822299&page=54

I think you will find it extremely interesting.

It has received over 81,000 visits since it (the thread) began about a year ago, and it is packed with an abundance of customer feedback and detail, including just how deceptive npower has been in treating customer complaints on this subject.

I believe that npower’s policy has been (and still is) to fob-off customer complaints in this matter with a range of spurious excuses, while paying off any persistent customers with “goodwill payments” rather than face them it court, where this matter could be properly decided, and the floodgates opened.

You may have read reports in the Times of one customer in particular who persisted with his claim, which he calculated at around an astonishing £1300. npower refused to accept the claim and said it would be rigorously defended. It even lodged a formal and detailed defence to the customer’s court proceedings. But with just 48 hours to go to the court hearing, npower capitulated and paid the claim in full.

True - such payment was made without admission of liability … but, npower would say that wouldn’t it? However, it is clear that npower had no wish to allow the claim to be tested in court. Surely if npower believed that its position would have been upheld by the court, it would have pressed ahead with its defence with the aim of achieving a very public success, thereby stopping all other claimants in their tracks. Instead npower simply said the claim was not worth defending.

In fact, npower is still paying out “goodwill payments” to persistent customers who also threaten court proceedings, the total cost of which will have long since exceeded the cost of defending the above-mentioned claim.

I do not suggest that this is conclusive or admissible evidence that npower is in the wrong, but I do suggest that, at face value, something is indeed seriously amiss with npower’s legal position in this matter – and that npower knows it.

I should add that the above-mentioned npower customer has generously played a key (and extensive) roll on the said thread in helping other customers through the npower maze. He now has two linked additional threads acting as virtual kits for would-be claimers. Many other contributors (including me) also assist, and give up their time freely to do this. That is the measure of their disgust at how npower has handled this entire situation.

I’m sure you would agree that this is a matter that now deserves complete transparency, as indeed Mr Mayo indicated in his email to me, and so I therefore propose to place a copy of this correspondence (and the Schedule herewith) on the above-mentioned website. I do hope you don’t mind. (Indeed, I trust you will agree with this course of action, as being in the public interest). There are a great many people out there who wish Consumer Focus well in its attempt to resolve this matter properly with Ofgem. In fact I suspect this will be a major test for Consumer Focus and its credibility.

For the record, perhaps you would be so kind as to acknowledge safe receipt of this email.

Yours sincerely,
etc

End of Part 1 – see next post for Part 2 (the Schedule referred to above)

Sterling

Here is the second part of a copy of a rather lengthy email I sent to Consumer Focus concerning Ofgem’s Announcement on Npower’s overcharging. It is here rather than in the thread to which it relates (npower gas ‘sculpting’) because of its extreme length. In fact that is why it is posted here in three posts as Parts 1, 2 and 3. If you would like to jump to the npower gas ‘sculpting’ thread, for the full story or to make a comment, the link is in the previous post, near the top.


Part 2

SCHEDULE

Subject – Points regarding Ofgem’s Announcement on npower’s overcharging and the matter generally

1. It is of course a fundamental principal of natural justice that any investigation of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature must allow equal representation to both sides of the argument.

2. However, while Ofgem seems to have had no shortage of dialogue with npower in the course of its investigation, the public have had no right of access or response whatsoever.

3. In other words there has been no opportunity for any member of the public to counter or challenge any defence or excuse offered by npower in this matter to Ofgem.

4. By virtue of points 1, 2 and 3 above, I submit that there are grounds to apply for a judicial review of the Ofgem investigation and for an order in the High Court that the said Ofgem decision be set aside as perverse and a denial of natural justice.

5. However, it is to be hoped that Ofgem will have the good sense to reconsider its position before such proceedings prove necessary. But I submit that Consumer Focus may well need to draw Ofgem’s attention to point 4 above if the stalling and delays from Ofgem continue much longer.

6. The Times (which as you may know is following this matter closely) has reported that Ofgem has indicated that its regulatory powers are not sufficient to enable it to deal with the Energywatch complaint more fully than it has already.

7. Clearly Ofgem should be asked if there is any truth in this report, and if necessary to explain its position in detail.

8. If Ofgem confirms that it lacks sufficient powers, then I offer these questions to be put to Ofgem

a. Why didn’t Ofgem point this out when the Energywatch complaint was made?

b. Why didn’t Ofgem apply to the Government for any necessary extension of its powers?

c. Why did Ofgem take on this investigation knowing or believing that its powers were insufficient?

d. Why did Ofgem take from April 2008 (when the complaint was made) until February 2009 to reach an inadequate decision - a delay to the public of ten months - before announcing that its powers were insufficient?

9. The Ofgem press release of 13th February 2009 indicates that npower had “agreed” to repay around 200,000 affected customers. The word “agreed” implies that there was not in fact any regulatory ruling or decision by Ofgem in this matter at all, but rather it merely entered into negotiation with npower, while excluding any input from (or on behalf of) the public. Again, if this is the case I submit there are grounds for the result of such negotiations to be set aside by judicial review as per paragraph 4 above.

10. The said 200,000 npower customers to be compensated were selected from the lowest gas users, who were least affected by the two technical changes npower made to its billing methods in 2007. The consequence of this is that their level of compensation is minimal, and will mean npower only having to pay out around £1.2million out of a possible £110million or more that it wrongly took from its affected customers.

11. Since all of the estimated 2.2 million affected gas customers in 2007 were (on npower’s own admission) deliberately charged for more than the maximum of 4572 high tier units over any 12 month period affected by the said changes, and as mentioned above less than ten per cent of them are to be reimbursed as a result of Ofgem’s investigation, it is therefore necessary to establish exactly what npower told Ofgem that in effect persuaded Ofgem to leave the vast majority of affected customers with no compensation whatever.

12. To begin with, npower has stated publicly (and presumably also to Ofgem) that the two said changes in 2007 were necessary as part of its consolidation of computerised billing methods from hitherto separate systems. Here is an extract from a letter from npower to a customer in 2008 in response to an enquiry.

“We started to seasonally weight higher priced ‘Primary Block’ gas with effect from 4 December 2006 until 30 April 2007 when this was changed to allow the migration of all gas accounts to best class billing system”.

“Seasonal weighting was reintroduced as of 1 November 2007…”

13. However, the truth of such a claim seems unlikely. It is almost impossible to see how making one or both said changes could be essential (or even merely useful) in assisting such consolidation in its computerised systems.

14. It also begs the question that if (repeat if) npower’s seasonally weighted bills were too complicated for its own software, perhaps such bills were too complicated for its customers (and still are).

15. I respectfully suggest that Ofgem should be asked what proof npower offered for this claim; and if Ofgem instructed an independent qualified expert to consider the veracity of npower’s statement as part of its investigation.

16. In addition, it is especially difficult to see how npower can claim (as it appears to) that the November 2007 change was planned at (or prior to) the time of the change the previous May, because

a. I have a copy of npower’s explanatory notes entitled “How to Work Out Your Gas Bill”, issued after the change in May 2007, but before the second change in November of that year. That document gives no indication whatever that there would be a second change in November. Surely, if the second change was part of the planned process it would have been mentioned in those notes – which are three pages of detailed explanation.

b. Furthermore, the said notes actually give the clear impression that the May 2007 change was a permanent switch from “seasonal weighting” to a uniform “flat rate” percentage of the said 4572 high tier units being apportioned equally every calendar month - and as such was a welcome simplification to customers. The said notes even projected this flat rate system forward as far as April 2008 – well beyond November 2007 – as an indication of its permanence. npower should perhaps be asked to explain this.

17. As seen above, by mid-2008, npower indicated that it had been necessary to have a temporary period of flat rate apportionment in 2007 order to facilitate the consolidation of its computer systems; and that this flat rate period was always intended to be a temporary expedient, pending a return to seasonal weighting or ‘gas sculpting’ as npower now call it. But the evidence of the two sub-paragraphs immediately above is in direct contradiction of this.

18. If these two said changes were not planned at the same time, it is impossible to see how npower can claim that the “flat rate” period between them was planned as a temporary measure to assist its computer system consolidation.

19. That “flat rate” period (during the months of May to October 2007, inclusive) meant that affected customers lost their summer light-weight apportionments of the 4572 high tier units, which would otherwise have balanced out the more heavily loaded winter months. Even without the second change in November, customers were already being overcharged. The second change made the situation even worse for overcharging because it introduced a much more extreme version of seasonal weighting.

20. If the said two changes were planned together, then one must ask why npower didn’t announce the second change at the time of the first.

21. Indeed, that also begs the question as to why npower “effectively” kept its customers in the dark as to what was happening, bearing in mind that it admits it deliberately overcharged its affected customers by too many high tier units through customers’ years affected by the said changes.

22. I must qualify the previous paragraph somewhat. I used the word “effectively” because npower did slip a few discrete words onto the back of a leaflet entitled “At Your Service”, which was sent out with gas bills due after the November 2007 change back to seasonal weighting (sculpting) – meaning many customers did not see it until many weeks or months later. The exact wording on the back of that leaflet is contained in a post in the above-mentioned Forum thread (post #270 p14) which you can access via the link inserted earlier in this email. But for your convenience here is an extract.

“So a typical customer will not see any change in the amount they pay over the year and their primary block size will not exceed 4572 kWh over that year”.

Suffice to say, npower’s wording hardly constitutes a formal notice of an important change to the contract. There is nothing to draw its attention to the customer as such, and I submit that it should be regarded as intentionally misleading as to its purpose and content, and therefore null and void.

23. Furthermore, as regards the said wording on the leaflet

· It does not refer to the previous change (in May of that year). So there is no indication that the two said changes were in anyway linked.

· It conveys the misleading impression that the change is beneficial to customers

· There is no indication that customers will be charged for more high tier units than the maximum of 4572 a year.

· And there is no mention of any compensatory price reduction of low tier units.

24. In his email to me, Mr Mayo said

“The defence put forward by npower suggests that the second tier of units was set at a lower price to compensate for the clock being re-set. We have yet to see evidence of this.”

Ofgem appear to have accepted npower’s above explanation, and that its customers have been fully compensated already. However, in addition to the above, the following points indicate that this claim is a complete fabrication.

25. Clearly, by its own admission to Ofgem, npower deliberately billed its affected customers for more than the contractual maximum of 4572 units as mentioned above. If, as npower claimed to Ofgem, the said reduction in price of its low tier units was a linked measure and acted as full compensation, then the onus is surely upon npower to prove that this was indeed the case.

26. Had npower chosen to inform its customers rather than to keep them “effectively” in the dark (a deliberate choice to do so), and had written to every customer formally and clearly saying exactly what was happening, including the price reduction of low tier units, then clearly its claim would be plausible. However, as npower chose to issue no such (valid) notice to its customers I submit that in both fact and law the said price reduction cannot in any way be seen as compensation. This submission is reinforced by some of the points that follow.

27. This lack of a valid and ostensible notice inevitably resulted in complaints to npower by its affected (and confused) customers as they checked their gas bills. There is an abundance of evidence that shows that these complaints (whether in writing, or by telephone to its call centres) were not handled as one might expect – by a simple explanation of the (alleged) compensatory low tier unit price reduction.

28. Instead, customers were told (by letter, and by its telephone call centres – from a script) a range of alternative excuses that do not stand up to scrutiny; some of which were contradictory.

29. These excuses included firstly, that the “count” of the maximum of 4572 high tier units “restarted” again whenever there was a price or tariff change. I submit that is blatantly untrue and that there is nothing in any of npower’s printed literature or terms and conditions that states any such thing.

30. Yet here are npower’s very written words attempting to fend of a customer complaint, as they appear in a letter to a customer who placed the content of that letter in the above-mentioned forum thread in April 2008 (#66 page 4).

“The first 4572 kwhs used are charged at the higher rate during the year, this is then divided out over the months. If there is a price increase the 4572 will start again”.

There is no mention of a compensatory reduction in the price of the low tier units, or even an admission that the maximum of 4572 high tier units was exceeded in billing customers over a year.

31. For the record, the first sentence quoted above appears in npower’s explanatory notes “How to Work Out Your Gas Bill”. The second sentence (“If there is a price increase the 4572 will start again”) does not. I have copies of those notes issued after the May and November 2007 changes, of three and five pages respectively of detailed explanation, and there is no such statement in either set of notes. I therefore submit the second sentence above is a blatant falsehood, and that npower should be made to answer for it under the terms of its suppliers licence.

32. Indeed, there is no such thing as a “count” of high tier units as indicated above. The concept is completely false and misleading. There is merely an apportionment of 4572 high tier units each month through a twelve month cycle. Therefore the only way this figure can change is if Npower changes the apportionments, as it did in May and November 2007. It cannot change by virtue of a price change, or a tariff change as these do not affect the monthly apportionments.

33. Any inspection of customer bills through (say 2008) when the sculpting apportionments remained unchanged will show that despite price or tariff changes, the high tier units on customers’ bills did not exceed 4572 over twelve months.

34. Coupled with the above excuse, npower attempted to retrospectively introduce the concept of a “tariff year”, and claimed that it was not a year at all, but a period of any length determined by a change in the unit prices or tariff. In other words, by the simple expedient of making such a change, npower could restart the clock whenever it felt like it.

35. Here are npower’s own words.

“The year quoted is a ‘tariff year’ that begins from the introduction of any changed charges. When npower changes the way customers are charged a new ‘tariff year’ commences from the date it is changed”.

36. There is of course nothing in npower’s official literature or terms and conditions to support such a bizarre idea; and even if there had been, I submit that it would be contrary to consumer protection law as grossly unfair and one-sided.

37. I further submit it was a deliberate attempt to mislead customers who complained.

38. As can be seen from the above, there is strong reason to believe there is a difference in what npower has been telling its customers who complain, and what it has told Ofgem, and I submit that this should be fully investigated as an important matter in its own right. Customers have their letters from npower readily available, and Ofgem has on record the statements made to it by npower. No doubt all npower call centre calls are recorded too. It would not be a difficult investigation.

39. If it is found that npower has not been entirely truthful to Ofgem, then that of course alone would justify a fresh investigation of the Energywatch complaint proper.

40. So far as I am aware, customers who complained were never told (as Ofgem was) that they had already been compensated by a price reduction; they were given a range of other excuses instead. I submit that npower’s conduct resembles an accused who, when arrested gives one alibi; but by the time of the trial, opts to give another.

End of Part 2 – See next post for Part 3

Sterling

Part 3

41. In any event, even if npower believed its “tariff year” / “restart the count or the clock” excuses, then it begs the question – why does it now say its reduction of the price of its low tier units in May 2007 was intended as a direct compensation measure? After all, why would compensation be necessary if it could restart the count (or clock) at will?

42. I submit that if npower believed in its “tariff year” / “restart the count or the clock” excuses, it would not have been necessary for it to persuade Ofgem that it had compensated its affected customers.

43. I further submit that npower didn’t offer the compensation excuse to its customers who complained because it hadn’t thought of it at the time.

44. I submit that, far from being compensation (as npower now alleges), the said price reduction by npower on 1st May 2007 was in fact a commercial and necessary expedient for competing with other gas suppliers, especially British Gas, with the sole intention of gaining an increase in market share.

45. I further submit that npower knew that (by virtue of just the May 2007 seasonal weighting change alone) the heavy cost of such a price reduction would be clawed back in large measure from existing customers and indeed new customers as well.

46. It must also be remembered that the timing of these changes gave npower the maximum financial advantage. Had it made these changes over a winter, customers would not have been adversely affected at all.

47. Because npower kept its said changes well disguised or hidden completely, I believe that even the comparison websites had no idea of the true cost of gas from npower (on tariffs with a two tier structure). Consequently, the calculations performed by such websites as to the cost of npower’s gas over a year, gave answers that were significantly lower than was actually the case. This can of course be checked by Ofgem. I submit that npower must have been well aware of what was happening.

48. As a direct result of this, existing and potential customers were mislead into thinking that npower was selling gas at a cheaper cost than actually was the case. I submit that this was easily foreseeable by npower, and that this was a breach of The Trade Descriptions Act and a breach of the terms of its suppliers licence.

49. I submit that Ofgem should reconsider its position in the light of the above, recognise that npower has not been entirely candid with it, and investigate the matter afresh, and if it finds npower has wrongly overcharged its affected customers (estimated at 2.2 million people), that it is ordered to repay each and every such customer accordingly, whatever the administrative cost to Npower that may be involved.

50. And I further submit that such repayments by npower be independently monitored and audited on behalf of Ofgem at npower’s expense in order to ensure that the task is properly, accurately and speedily carried out.

51. If, during the course of a fresh investigation, it turns out that npower gave Ofgem false information during the first investigation, Ofgem must clearly take that into account (as extremely serious), and decide if a fine would serve the public interest in addition to the above. I submit that it would not, provided the said order for repayment is properly carried out by npower – within a set period of (say) six months. The administrative cost will no doubt hurt as much as any fine.

52. Ofgem must remember that it has been entrusted with the responsibility of consumer protection in the area of energy supply. It is therefore in the position of a trustee, and must act as such at all times; that is to say, it must carry out its public duty to the highest possible standards at all times. Anything less is a breach of that trust.

53. I submit that the totality of the above points and comments is an overwhelming indication that Ofgem has failed lamentably to achieve that standard on this occasion; and that the said complaint from Energywatch must be completely (and speedily) reinvestigated without delay.

54. Finally, it must surely be the public duty of every energy supply company to act at all times with the utmost integrity, honestly and good faith towards its customers and also in its dealings with Ofgem. I submit that the totality of the above strongly indicates that npower has seriously failed to comply with that duty.

DirectDebacle

The best post I have seen so far on 'sculpting'. Well done Sterling. I for one know the amount of time and effort you put into this. A magnficent piece and I hope Consumer Focus give it the serious consideration it deserves.

meggsy

Terrific work Sterling and DD :T

1carminestocky

An incredible piece of work, Sterling. :T

SwanJon

Would love to see what you get back from this.

Pssst

Ofgem are just an overpaid quango. They were once useful and can still be of use but do not always focus on what is good for customers. In addition,they are not above sticking their own snouts in the trough.

For example their chairman Lord John mogg reputedly gets paid more than £100,000 a year for just 3 days work a month !

At the same time,he and his underlings are currently seeking to rob the pensions from those who work in energy industries,men and women who have paid into those schemes !

No doubt Lord Mogg and his colleagues have good pensions under the civil service gold plated pensions schemes.
http://www.ipe.com/news/GMB_targets_Ofgem_over_pension_proposals_29391.php


Thieves and crook,the lot of them

Apologies for diversifying slightly!

Cardew

Great work Sterling.

Just one point.

I believe that Ofgem’s investigation in this matter is inherently flawed because although it liaised directly with npower, its customers had no opportunity to put their case in rebuttal.

Whilst we would all obviously be agreement with that statement, I am a little uneasy that we all seem to be making the assumption that the 'charge' against NPower(that Ofgem considered) was the issue of more than 4,572 tier 1 units in a 12 month period when seasonal weighting was suspended.

Before we take issue with Ofgem's handling of this matter, we really need to know what 'charges' they considered. i.e. the Terms of Reference of the investigation.

Given the contents of their Press release, which dealt with notification and the low users, I have some doubts that the 4,572units/12month issue was even considered.

Sterling

Cardew - You are absolutely right. I attempted to address this very point in paragraph numbers 19 and 45. This matter has so many facets to it that a vitally important point like this can fade into the background.

Also, I cannot understand why, bearing in mind that Ofgem released its press release on 13th February, that here we are – close to the end of March, and still in the dark and waiting around for Ofgem.

In the meantime, I relied on Ed Mayo’s words in his email (in post #1084)

I can confirm that in the initial energywatch referral in April 2008 the issue of over charging based on the re-modelling of the tariff structure in April and November 2007 was raised. There was also specific reference to the 2.2 million consumers affected.

DirectDebacle

Cardew wrote: »

Great work Sterling.

Just one point.



Whilst we would all obviously be agreement with that statement, I am a little uneasy that we all seem to be making the assumption that the 'charge' against NPower(that Ofgem considered) was the issue of more than 4,572 tier 1 units in a 12 month period when seasonal weighting was suspended.

Before we take issue with Ofgem's handling of this matter, we really need to know what 'charges' they considered. i.e. the Terms of Reference of the investigation.

Given the contents of their Press release, which dealt with notification and the low users, I have some doubts that the 4,572units/12month issue was even considered.

This is the correct approach at the moment. We shouldn't make the same mistake that we believe Ofgem made and pass judgement before the full facts are known.







This part of Ed Mayos' response is ominous

As regards your specific questions:

I can confirm that in the initial energywatch referral in April 2008 the issue of over charging based on the re-modelling of the tariff structure in April and November 2007 was raised. There was also specific reference to the 2.2 million consumers affected. Likewise it also complained more generally on implementing unadvertised changes in the following way:

“There is no transparency to consumers or to energywatch on how far the price cut compensated consumers for the increased allocation of higher price units and we would request Ofgem to review the methodology used by npower to verify if this detriment has been offset by the level of their price reduction.”

In response to your third question, Ofgem, in its decisions, has not ignored the price increases arising from tariff re-modelling for all gas customers on the tariff. What they say is that the price reduction in April was sufficient to make up the additional cost for the majority of Npower’s 2.2 million customers

It is not clear to me from this what the actual complaint was that Energywatch submitted to Ofgem or that Ofgem understood it. Without knowing that we can't be sure if Ofgem fudged the issue or not.


Here is the FOI Act in formation I requested from Ofgem. They tell me they are allowed 20 days to supply it and will require all of that due to the complexity of the request.

Hopefully some of our questions will be answered either by this or the Ofgem response to the request from Consumer Focus.

04 March 2009 17:23
To: Paul Kitcher
Subject: Re: npower investigation

Hello Paul,



Thank you for your response.

The information I require is as follows

1. Copy of the original complaint submitted by Energywatch to Ofgem

2. Copies of witness statements submitted by Energywatch to Ofgem

3. Copies of all other witness statements submitted to Ofgem from other sources. Including but not limited to, members of the public, other suppliers and all other witnesses, whether the evidence was considered or used by Ofgem or not

4. Copy of the complaint the enforcement team were tasked to investigate

5. Details of all further statements or notes of interviews taken by the enforcement team from witnesses

6. Details of the enquiries made by the enforcement team to Npower. Npowers response. This should include copies of letters or emails sent to npower. If npower were interviewed in person then where, when and with whom were the interview(s) conducted.

7. Copies of the statements or notes taken as at 6 above.

8. Details of further statement/notes/enquiries made of witnesses to verify or not the validity of Npowers response

9. Copies of the evidence submitted by Npower in their defence

10. Details of how the figure of 200,000 customers being overcharged around £1.8 million were calculated and by who

11. Details of any enquiries Ofgem made to verify the above figures

12. How many of these overcharged customers are currently (at the time of the investigation was completed) with npower.

13. Details of how Ofgem will ensure Npower have complied with their ruling

14. Any further enquiries Ofgem will be making to Npower as a result of this investigation.

Thank you for your co-operation