Npower bill - had an increase?

BenNevis

backfoot wrote: »

It also completely alters the original intention and operation of the DD schemes. That was to spread the seasonality of consumption over a 12 month period.

Agreed. There is no doubt that this is a morphing of the 12 monthly DD payments of the same amount into something different in the sense that the companies want to “spring align” before calculating a monthly DD that would remain the same if prices and consumption remain the same, so this manoeuvre is in effect an interim step. However, as I explained in post #67 even in the worst case scenario that you quoted, I don’t see why this is such a problem other than the fact that this change has been effected without telling the public. It's a public relations disaster.

Well done BTW on all your work on exit fees, very impressive and I agree with everything you wrote and customers were being stung. But on this issue….no one is being overcharged are they? It’s just being badly handled.:)

DirectDebacle wrote: »

It is written into SLC 27. therefore I have no need to write to Ofgem.

Hello DD, your work on Npower’s sculpting fiddle (where massive deliberate overcharging took place) was IMO awesome. So I really hope you understand when I say that I have read SLC 27 and I see nothing that specifically prevents what the companies are now doing. I read in a previous post of yours that you referred Jalexa to Ofgem’s consultation documentation etc for the background and I read quite a lot of it, not all I must admit but I found nothing that specifically prohibits what is now happening.

As I said before, “If you think that runs against Ofgem’s intentions you probably need to find something that Ofgem has written that actually says so. Do you have anything along those lines?”

I just don’t see how Ofgem can hold a company in breach of its license conditions unless it actually breaches the actual wording of one of those conditions. So can you please quote the wording you have in mind?

Also, how will you get this practice overturned unless you write to Ofgem?:)

jalexa

BenNevis wrote: »

..I just don’t see how Ofgem can hold a company in breach of its license conditions unless it actually breaches the actual wording of one of those conditions

I agree with that. I'm particularly concerned with [SLC27.15] "...including information as to the quantity of gas which the licensee reasonably estimates has been or will be supplied"... (my emphasis).

Partly that is exactly what the suppliers are doing. Regarding "short year spring aligning", regardless of what Ofgem Decision Document pages 2 to 37 may or may not say, I cannot see anything in the exact wording of the SLC27 additions which "prohibits" what some suppliers appear to be doing, as "predicted" by Consumer Focus in their concern at "light touch" regulation wording.

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

Agreed. There is no doubt that this is a morphing of the 12 monthly DD payments of the same amount into something different in the sense that the companies want to “spring align” before calculating a monthly DD that would remain the same if prices and consumption remain the same, so this manoeuvre is in effect an interim step. However, as I explained in post #67 even in the worst case scenario that you quoted, I don’t see why this is such a problem other than the fact that this change has been effected without telling the public. It's a public relations disaster.

But on this issue….no one is being overcharged are they? It’s just being badly handled.:)

Ben,

You have described exactly what is wrong with it. You agree the consequences which are additional 'interim payments' as you nicely term them.

Quite rightly, no one is overcharged because we are discussing the payments and not the bill.

What is the advantage to a customer of a spring align? None to the customer imho.

The disadvantage is the interim payment. For me it's significant.
For others, on low monthly incomes, quite devastating. Price hikes have already taken energy costs to the borderline of manageability.

A 100% increase (as shown in my figures) will cripple many. Maybe not me or you, but rest assured it will for most.

I honestly can't see why you, Jalexa and others seem so relaxed about it. The Supplier's have shifted the goalposts dramatically and it has to stop.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

I honestly can't see why you, Jalexa and others seem so relaxed about it.

I think you have allowed yourself to be sidetracked by me personally being "content" at what I was informed was the "annual review" date on my particular account which may or may not be the "annual review" date on all Edf accounts.

In spite of unworthy allegations to the contrary I completely understand how "review" can be adversely affected by "winter consumption" and "late payment start" regardless of whether the review model is "spring" or "anniversary" aligned.

I remain in this "debate" in spite of some rather unpleasant "personal criticism" because I cannot agree (as a "contracts" person, not a "legal" person), that the "light touch" wording of the SLC27 additions is at all clear. Given what the industry did with "guaranteed discount" it is stupid beyond belief (as Consumer Focus predicted) that the "light touch" SLC27 direct debit additions wouldn't be "similarly manipulated" by the industry.

I am very concerned that prior to the the SLC27 additions, Ofgem found no evidence of unjustified increases or systematic error. How can we expect the Regulator now to say that that their recent regulation now results in behaviour exhibiting "unjustified increases and systematic error"? Which on the evidence of forum post appears to be happening. This is a monumental Ofgem "fail".

Just because I personally believe I can work with an Edf (or Eon) model (in a 3 year contract in preference to what I believe is the NPower "rolling 12 months" every 6 months model) does not mean I do not recognise "unjustified increases and systematic error" in these models.

DirectDebacle

This is what I said in post #57:

The key component of SLC 27 is that it refers to Domestic Supply Contract.

If npower have no definition in clear, plain and intelligble language in their terms and conditions of the contract of when an annual review will take place, then the commom meaning of such a term will prevail.

That would be 12 months after the account was opened, or just as acceptable 12 months after the date the first DD was taken.

My view is that SLC 27 is requiring suppliers to set up and manage DD accounts in accordance with SLC 27 and the Domestic Supply Contract. In other words with the terms and conditions the supplier and customer agree to.

If the T & C's in a DSC state that a DD will always required to be at zero on a particular date, irrespective of when the DD commenced and this is clearly explained to the customer together with all other relevent information, at the time or before the agreement is made and the account is managed in accordance with the requirements of SLC 27, there should not be a breach of SLC 27.

I have not yet seen a post stating that a DD agreement was knowingly entered into under those conditions.

As this thread is discussing npower look at their T&C's and find what they say regarding DD.

Only by delving into their website can you find their description of how their DD scheme is supposed to work.

I have already given my view on that.

jalaxa gave this opinion:

I have no idea what system NPower are employing though I have a theory it is a "rolling 12 months" reviewed every 6 months. At best. Whatever system they are employing I find it totally obscure and I am a fairly old hand at this.

SLC 27 is requiring suppliers to set up and manage DD accounts in a particular way but is not describing or requiring any particular DD plan. A supplier can invent any type of DD scheme they wish provided it is properly set up, described and fully explained to the customer. (SLC 27.14).

SLC 27.15 requires, in short, that the payments are maintained on the best possible information available during the term of the DD agreement.

Ofgem do not specifically prohibit any supplier from operating a spring aligned or alternative DD scheme (to the 'default'), as long as it is fully explained to the customer and administered in accordance with SLC 27.

My view is that npower are in breach of SLC 27.14 as they have not explained in clear, plain and intelligble language how their DD scheme is administered.

That would also mean they were in breach of their T & C's.

BenNevis

backfoot wrote: »

Ben,

You have described exactly what is wrong with it. You agree the consequences which are additional 'interim payments' as you nicely term them. True.

Quite rightly, no one is overcharged because we are discussing the payments and not the bill. At least we agree that no one is being overcharged.

What is the advantage to a customer of a spring align? None to the customer imho. The companies might say that DD payments in the spring would be calculated in the traditional way and customers would (in theory) always be in credit making it easier to switch when the time comes.

The disadvantage is the interim payment. Agreed For me it's significant.
For others, on low monthly incomes, quite devastating. Price hikes have already taken energy costs to the borderline of manageability.

A 100% increase (as shown in my figures) will cripple many. Maybe not me or you, but rest assured it will for most. Yes I agree there has to be a mechanism to cater for people suffering real financial hardship. Perhaps SLC 27.8 leads the way.

“27.8 The licensee must take all reasonable steps to ascertain the Domestic Customer’s ability to pay and must take this into account when calculating instalments…”

I honestly can't see why you, Jalexa and others seem so relaxed about it. The Supplier's have shifted the goalposts dramatically and it has to stop.

The trouble is that unless Ofgem agrees with you its hard to see how to stop it. Ofgem wrote the SLC’s after all.

BenNevis

DirectDebacle wrote: »

My view is that SLC 27 is requiring suppliers to set up and manage DD accounts in accordance with SLC 27 and the Domestic Supply Contract. In other words with the terms and conditions the supplier and customer agree to.

I wish that SLC 27 had been worded to prohibit what the companies are doing but the sad fact is that it doesn’t. On the other hand individual customers might argue that they’ve been duped into entering into a contract on the basis that their monthly DD would be one figure only to find it increased shortly afterwards purely to suit the company and what's more the company planned that all along but kept silent. I hope that helps. But I’ve read each and every paragraph of SLC 27 and FWIW (and like Jalexa) I just don’t see anything you could seriously use to claim a company is in breach of SLC 27 by using this interim step to “spring align”.

Customers who’ve been duped as I mentioned above would (I imagine) have the right in law to have their contract set aside and switch elsewhere without penalty or insist that the company reverts to the original DD figure as per the original agreement. Perhaps this is the route you and backfoot should be taking.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If the T & C's in a DSC state that a DD will always required to be at zero on a particular date, irrespective of when the DD commenced and this is clearly explained to the customer together with all other relevant information, at the time or before the agreement is made and the account is managed in accordance with the requirements of SLC 27, there should not be a breach of SLC 27.

Well if you say that under those circumstances there is no breach of SLC 27 (and I agree) then you’re clearly saying that SLC 27 doesn’t prevent this new approach to calculating DD payments as such. If it did it would have contained words that barred it completely or described the method to be used in every case.

As I said in my previous post in reply to backfoot “The trouble is that unless Ofgem agrees with you it’s hard to see how to stop it. Ofgem wrote the SLC’s after all.”

DirectDebacle

BenNevis wrote: »

I wish that SLC 27 had been worded to prohibit what the companies are doing but the sad fact is that it doesn’t. On the other hand individual customers might argue that they’ve been duped into entering into a contract on the basis that their monthly DD would be one figure only to find it increased shortly afterwards purely to suit the company and what's more the company planned that all along but kept silent. I hope that helps. But I’ve read each and every paragraph of SLC 27 and FWIW (and like Jalexa) I just don’t see anything you could seriously use to claim a company is in breach of SLC 27 by using this interim step to “spring align”......

I think we are, basically, in agreement and you are making a distinction where there is no difference.

Can you explain why you think there is no breach of SLC 27 under the circumstances you describe above the highlighted sentence.

BenNevis

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I think we are, basically, in agreement and you are making a distinction where there is no difference.

What you’ve agreed is that if an energy supply company lets its customers know before they sign up that this new “spring align” system exists and in all other respects SLC 27 is complied with it can get away with it and there’s nothing in SLC 27 to stop it.

On the other hand if (as appears to be happening at present) customers are being signed up without adequate warning etc then I maintain there still is nothing specific in SLC 27 that obliges the companies to drop this system.

True that SLC 27.14 says

“The licensee must provide to each such Domestic Customer an explanation in clear,plain and intelligible language of the basis which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined.”

But what it doesn’t say is when this explanation must be given. And that’s the best clause of the bunch.

I (perhaps wrongly) judged from that and the general tone of several of your other posts especially to Jalexa that somewhere in SLC 27 or the associated Ofgem consultative documents etc there was a definite prohibition against departing from the old system. You must admit that you (and backfoot) gave Jalexa a bit of a hammering and all credit to the guy he stood his ground. So I must say it comes as something of a shock to find that you haven’t been able to quote any provision that will serve to prevent the energy supply companies going over to this new system.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Can you explain why you think there is no breach of SLC 27 under the circumstances you describe above the highlighted sentence.

Well as I said then …” I’ve read each and every paragraph of SLC 27 and FWIW (and like Jalexa) I just don’t see anything you could seriously use to claim a company is in breach of SLC 27 by using this interim step to “spring align”. What more can I say?:D

If you disagree and you can quote a provision that I have missed then you’re on to a winner in this dispute with the energy companies and I’ll be the first to applaud you. But so far I sense that if you could do this you’d have quoted something by now. You certainly need to convince Ofgem as regulator before you can get this new system stopped. That’s why I asked if you’d considered writing to them.

DirectDebacle

BenNevis wrote: »

But what it doesn’t say is when this explanation must be given. And that’s the best clause of the bunch.

My view is that if you do not understand what information and when it should be provided, concerning the terms of a contract you are about to enter into, then you should have someone with you who does, before you enter into it. It can then be explained to you before you sign up.