EDF and rejecting increase in writing

backfoot

Guys,

You are overdoing the legals with EDf. This is a case that the messenger in CS doesn't know that EDF have made a policy decison to waive the charges.

Just quote or speak to Kerry. She may contact you tomorrow via this and it will all be put right.

[EMAIL="Kerry.Butler@edfenergy.com"]Kerry.Butler@edfenergy.com[/EMAIL]

Keep it simple or you will just confuse the poor CS peeps.

meherenow

jalexa wrote: »

I don't think *anybody* (even Edf) disagrees with that.

This is the problem I have with the two emails I have listed above, they ARE disagreeing with that:

The first one states "[FONT=&quot]As above we can advise that your prices will change as per the price increase. If you did wish to change energy provider you would still incur the price increase.[/FONT]"

That one couldn't be any more clear cut about their position and then the latest one today says: "The terms and conditions also state the Online Saver Version 7 unit rates are guaranteed to be at least 2% less that our equivalent Standard tariff unit rates, however it is a variable tariff and may be affected by prices changes.

The Ofgem regulation you refer to applies to our Standard tariff only and when you agreed to the Online Saver Version 7 tariff you entered a formal supply agreement with EDF Energy and are bound to the terms and conditions of the Online Saver Version 7 tariff.
"


So two different agents are trying to tell me that the Ofgem regulations do not apply to me despite me pointing it out to them.

jalexa

meherenow wrote: »

This is the problem I have with the two emails I have listed above, they ARE disagreeing with that:

My apologies, I didn't study your emails closely enough, partly because, and here I slightly amend my argument, "nobody except some people at Edf" hold that view, but mainly because the relevant Licence clauses "23.3 - 23.6" are sufficiently clear. (The "termination fee" debate arises because clause 24.3 is less easy to understand).

The supply industry, with it appears the tacit acquiescence of Ofgem and/or Consumer Focus, has designed a tariff that clearly some industry staffers believe circumvents all the rules (and all for 2%!). While it may (or may not) circumvent the early termination waiver, I very much doubt it circumvents the increase waiver (refer to clauses 23.3 - 23.6). But because it is a tariff "designed to circumvent" (implicitly confirmed by the Edf emails), there is a wholly incompetent belief, I mean wholly incompetent belief, that it circumvents all regulations.

My (tactical) advice is exactly the same. Light the blue touchpaper (i.e. launch a complaint) and stand well back (i.e. wait for "deadlock" or 8 weeks), meanwhile get on with the switch (and life).

And/or take backfoot's advice.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

but mainly because the relevant Licence clauses "23.3 - 23.6" are sufficiently clear. (The "termination fee" debate arises because clause 24.3 is less easy to understand).

[FONT=Arial,Bold]Termination Fees[/FONT]
24.3 The licensee may include a term in a Domestic Supply Contract requiring a
Domestic Customer to pay a Termination Fee to end that contract except in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the contract is of an indefinite length;
(b) without prejudice to sub-paragraph (a), the contract allows for both a fixed
term period and a period of indefinite length and it is brought to an end
during the period of indefinite length; or
(c) the licensee gives Notice of a unilateral variation of a term of the contract
in accordance with paragraph 3 of standard condition 23 (Notification of
Domestic Supply Contract terms) and sub-paragraph 6(a) of that condition

binds the licensee.

Jalexa,

I know we are of like mind on this.I don't follow your comment that clause 24.3.(c) is less easy to understand.

It looks completely clear and unambigous to me.

I fail to see that any exceptions could arise out of this wording.(other than made up ones).:)

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

I fail to see that any exceptions could arise out of this wording.(other than made up ones)

Hmmm. I'm a "contracts" person (not a pure lawyer). I find 24.3(c) quite difficult to follow (probably because it refers explicitly to "contract term" but the price is an "implied term" and the "guarantee" is maintained post increase). That is not to dismiss your wiser explanations in the round (which I agree with).

I also have a circular argument that "guaranteed discount" tariffs exist, indeed have regularly appeared at the the top of the comparison tables for at least the last 12 months, usually by virtue of an initial discount somethat higher than the normal paltry "guaranteed" 2%.

I would say this form of tariff was designed "intentionally to circumvent" the very clear "regulatory intent" that consumers can act to reject an increase. A foolhardy contempt of regulation and the customer for which I hope, in time , the industry will pay a very heavy price. As indeed if evidence of "tacit acquiescence" by Ofgem and/or Consumer Focus emerges, regulation will lose any last vestage of consumer confidence.

Clearly, (very clearly in Edf's case, as evidenced by emails almost certainly not drafted by a CS bod) some suppliers, and at least one MSE article author believes 24.3(c) means something else. That was all I was saying.

We can argue whether it is clear or not and I welcome forum reports of Scottish Power and British Gas "waivers" and your own reports of high level "waiver" agreement with Edf. Yet the message doesn't seem to have got through to CS.

And what the heck is the reason for 24.4?

meherenow

Here's my now third email to EDF on the same subject - I've asked for the deadlock letter if they tell me the same thing again.



"Dear Ms xxxxx,


I'm afraid I really must take issue with your reply.

I feel you did not respond to my queries in a manner befitting a "formal complaint", of which this email now adds to.

It would seem you did not consult with your own legal department as I requested it is my understanding that they and Kerry Butler in Customer Service have made it be known that EDF have waived termination fees as a policy decision on OS7. I have also copied Kerry Butler this email.

Also you are wrong regarding the Ofgem regulation that I quote. Once again, it does not matter what your terms & conditions say regarding variable rates as the Ofgem rules supersede these in every way. Because I have informed you in writing of my intention to leave AND started the transfer within the timeframe stipulated you are simply not allowed to raise my tariff costs!

May I also say that it is quite ridiculous that you are taking 15 working days (3 whole weeks) to reply to queries. I do so hope that this extra time it is taking to reply is going in to more staff training so that all staff may be briefed the same regarding matters of policy and Ofgem regulation.

I would ask that you carefully read and consider my points before replying as this is now my third communication to you on this matter.

If you are not able to concede to my points then I would require you to send me a deadlock letter whereupon I will take my complaint directly to the Energy Ombudsman.


Regards"


edit: it would appear that Kerry Butler is out of the office until next Monday....

backfoot

Just an update on some developments.

I have written to Consumer Affairs at OFGEM regarding the treatment of Termination Fees following price increases. I have highlighted the issue concerning discounted tariffs and asked for guidance. At the same time I have explained how such an exception would be an anomoly and an unexpected consequence.

I have also been discussing the same issue from the legal perspective of a Supplier. This was to tease out, how such a interpretation for 'discounted tariffs' has come about. The argument put forward is that with a discounted tariff there is not a 'Unilateral Variation' because the T and C's specifically state that such variations become a Principal Term.

It is worth stressing that this hasn't been tested,it is only a view. It is also apparent that put alongside the very clear Licence condition of 24.3 (c), that a Judge would have to determine which took precedence. i.e. The License Condition or the alleged Contract Law view.

Such complexities and legal issues are not in the interests of the Suppliers. In the current climate,at least three Suppliers have already conceded the issue. If there was a full challenge and a Supplier won, then the simple remedy would be an overiding Licence Condition change to enforce the original intention.

I have an acknowledgment from Ofgem and will report back any further information as and when.

meherenow

Nice work Backfoot. I feel like making a song and dance about this especially regarding the issue of not raising the price when I have instigated a supplier change - clearly by reading the emails EDF feel I must pay the increased tariff because they have made up some terms & conditions that say so.

I await their latest reply (but I won't hold my breath given their track record on "speedy" turnarounds).

backfoot

You are doing a fine job meherenow, both on your own behalf and to help others by establishing the correct outcome.:T

The trouble is that the issue is really dead with EDF as I have once again confirmed with their Legal Department today.

I could see this coming a couple of months back and it was all conceded back then. Unfortunately, EDF is a big outfit and communication/training is not their strong point.You have simply fallen foul of an unbriefed team/individuals.

I think it is really worthwile pushing ahead to see how far this gets before they officially concede your case.I sense you are probably relishing the challenge anyway and hold strong convictions about it.

Keep up the good work.

meherenow

Thank you for your kind words backfoot

You have me pegged down exactly! There's nothing I like more than challenging bureaucracy when I feel I have been wronged by a company that thinks it can ride roughshod over the little man.

Quite a high percentage of successes over the years too so I'm not going to be deterred.