Should I pay cancellation fee to Scottish Power?

eurmalian

backfoot wrote: »

I would beware posts on this matter from employees of the Suppliers. Many of them have a history of maintaining the company line on termination fees.

I'm actually taking a bit of offence at that.

In general I've got a fair bit of respect for you and what you've done, but that's eroded part of it for definite.

Yes, I work for a supplier. Unlike a lot of people on here I'm open about that rather than trying to hide it except when it suits me to say 'I work for a supplier but won't say who' in a post. It doesn't mean I've been magically brainwashed by them or anything.

Basically, this boils down to: Company provided two part process to follow. Customer found third party website that does part two for them. Customer assumed (incorrectly) that website would also do part one and didn't think to check this. Process failed. Customer decided it was companys fault.

Whether you like the process or not, that's what happened and trying to simply write off people who disagree with you using a 'Yeah, but you shouldn't listen to them. I'm better' is pretty immature.

jalexa

eurmalian wrote: »

Whether you like the process or not, that's what happened.

OK, so do you have a take on SLC 23.6(c), in particular the use of ";or" and the curious phrase "met conditions"?

Why do the Regulations have a (c) when (on the face of it) (a) and (b) seem sufficient?

My approach is quite clear, why accept a company viewpoint when (on this issue) it took specific Ofgem "guidance" to get all companies to fall into line. Though there was never anything in the Regulations *preventing* a "customer reasonable" interpretation.

grahamc2003

eurmalian wrote: »

Basically, this boils down to: Company provided two part process to follow. Customer found third party website that does part two for them. Customer assumed (incorrectly) that website would also do part one and didn't think to check this. Process failed. Customer decided it was companys fault.

Whether you like the process or not, that's what happened and trying to simply write off people who disagree with you using a 'Yeah, but you shouldn't listen to them. I'm better' is pretty immature.

I think the point being made is that Part 1 of the defined process is really of no significance - a meaningless hoop there purely as an excuse to charge. True, it probably originated from the regulator, but that dosn't make it a step of any business significance.

In any case, the reason someone gave 'so the file can be marked so the levy isn't charged' is also wrong in my case (when leaving bg in fact). My file was marked, yet I still got charged the leaving fee (withdrawn when I rang, but that in itself is hassle I could do without).

So the op didn't follow the defined procedure, but since the defined procedure really makes no sense, it's unreasonable for the average customer to spontaeneously think they have to ring in advance to avoid the charge imo. I agree with the use of the word 'churlish' for suppliers charging the leaving fee when an illogical procedure hasn't been followed.

eurmalian

I have no idea. I haven't actually read the regulations that were published. I would say though, that if people think that the whole 'let us know and we'll let you leave for free' thing was not following the regs properly then the time to say would have been when the first company tried it. Not after hundreds of thousands of people have correctly followed it and wew're now left with a few people who didn't read the letter correctly and aren't happy.

I also want to point out that in general I think variable fixed term contracts are a bad thing and should probably be stopped. I believe that if a contract has a cancellation fee then the terms of it should be fully fixed. That doesn't change that I think if a company has given instructions on how to do something and you don't follow them, that isn't the companys fault. The two are really separate issues.

backfoot

eurmalian wrote: »

I'm actually taking a bit of offence at that.

In general I've got a fair bit of respect for you and what you've done, but that's eroded part of it for definite.

Yes, I work for a supplier. Unlike a lot of people on here I'm open about that rather than trying to hide it except when it suits me to say 'I work for a supplier but won't say who' in a post. It doesn't mean I've been magically brainwashed by them or anything.

Basically, this boils down to: Company provided two part process to follow. Customer found third party website that does part two for them. Customer assumed (incorrectly) that website would also do part one and didn't think to check this. Process failed. Customer decided it was companys fault.

Whether you like the process or not, that's what happened and trying to simply write off people who disagree with you using a 'Yeah, but you shouldn't listen to them. I'm better' is pretty immature.

I was trying to help the customer (OP) by explaining that this topic is quite fluid at the moment.It is not at all black and white as your post seemed to indicate.Interestingly,you have referred to 'the procedure' but later admit that you don't know what SLC 23.6 says.

Not withstanding the precise legal arguments, I know from personal discussions with OFGEM,what the intention of this area of the SLC's were meant to be. As I explained, Ofgem will not take kindly to Supplier's penalising customers,for taking a competitve response to a price increase.

Following your post, I wanted to assure the OP that many 'employee posters' quite naturally take a particular stance on such matters. In the same way,that I and others take a 'consumer view'. It wasn't directed at you individually. If you really think I am immature, well so be it. I think most of the other posters on the thread and other threads realise I simply try to help customers fight these huge companies.

There is enough wriggle room in this case for SP to see that there is a genuine customer who really shouldn't be penalised.I think we can trust Graeme to do the right thing.:)

I am not better than anyone else.I've no idea why you attribute that to me. Unfortunately, I realise that being a regular poster does sometimes cause frictions. I have broad shoulders.:D

robdaphunk

roddydogs wrote: »

So why didnt you just notify them?

I didn't notify them as when I had started the switch procedure to npower they emailed me stating there is nothing more for me to do and that they will notify SP of the switch

eurmalian

As I said, I don't generally have any problems with you at all. I think it's good to see people proactively working on the problems being raised here and actually getting things done.

My issue was that the first and last paragraphs of your post basically read as 'employees of energy companies will just spout the company line, so ignore what they say and listen to me instead' which seemed more than a little cheeky

I do defend the companies from time to time, but that's not anything to do with working for them so much as just there seems to be a general theme on the boards that everything must be the fault of the company and there are times that I feel a bit of balance is needed.

This post is largely a good example of that. The process the companies are using is a poor one and could be improved a lot. However, the customer had what they need to do in writing and missed part of it. Then came to the conclusion that this was not their fault, which others started re-inforcing. My general point is that yes, the suppliers should be doing more, their process is indeed poor. But it's also partly your responsibility for not following the letter...

backfoot

eurmalian wrote: »

This post is largely a good example of that. The process the companies are using is a poor one and could be improved a lot. However, the customer had what they need to do in writing and missed part of it. Then came to the conclusion that this was not their fault, which others started re-inforcing. My general point is that yes, the suppliers should be doing more, their process is indeed poor. But it's also partly your responsibility for not following the letter...

Ah but you have fallen for the company line again.SP and other suppliers have written their own interpretation of what a customer must do.

The SLC's do not prescribe how the losing Supplier has to be notified. (it actually says by any means under SLC 26.3).

Graeme has explained for their purposes they would like it to be in writing, so they can outsort the account to avoid the termination fee. In practice,they could just as easily outsort it on being given notice by the acquiring supplier.Alternatively, do not have Termination Fees as the default position, so that they don't need to be outsorted.

So quite to the contrary, is it the Customer's fault? As we saw, with the Supplier interpretation that Guaranteed and Discounted tariffs could attract termination fees,that interpretation was completely wrong. Not only that, Ofgem went out of their way to describe the overall intentions in their Guidance Note.

That message is much more important than how a Supplier would like to enact the SLC's for their own procedural benefit.

Given,the explanation by the OP that he assumed, and was told, it would all be done by the new Supplier, I personally don't think he has done anything wrong. He may not have done what SP wanted him to do, but that is their problem and not his.Fining him £51 under these circumstances....seriously ? :eek:

I am absolutely convinced he would win an Ombudsman case.

backfoot

Was this case resolved?

backfoot

Just bumping this thread back up because it is relevant to the other SP Cancellation/Termination Fee thread.

The OP had unfortunately fallen foul of SP's procedural requirement and had fined him £51.

Once again, the response was to maintain the hard line without putting forward a justification other than it suited their own manual processes.

We don't yet know how this case was resolved.