Npower bill - had an increase?

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

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 think you have made a massive overreaction to any comments perceived as criticism.At most, I made a lighthearted post regarding your own style of writing which involves a lot of sub texts.:)

Putting that aside, we all seem now to be agreed that there can be a dramatic impact from spring alignment. I also feel that 'over review' of accounts can cause as many problems as they may be intended to resolve.

We have a divide of opinion as to whether there is a Breach of SLC27.Ben and yourself are looking for specific words which rule out such a practice/s. I don't think the SLC27 is prescriptive enough but I do believe it provides sufficient basis to use it to challenge many of the practices we are seeing. Until someone actually does,we don't really know.

In any event, a particular complaint will have it's own set of circumstances and will be adjudicated by the Energy Ombudsman.

Taking Eon as an example, because they actually have a defined and stated policy of spring alignment.Does this mean that you can't win a complaint against an initial 100% increase impact? I would be arguing that such a policy is totally outwith the intentions and accepted intentions of the DD scheme.That intention is purely to spread payments at a fixed and regular amount over an annual period, words that are used in the SLC.

To realistically expect a joining customer to find the large interim payment(increased DD) before the true fixed and regular amount really commences is twisting the SLC27 too far.That is a matter for common sense and common interpretation. If Eon or another supplier weren't flexible,in those circumstances, I consider they would lose an adjudication.

As we saw with the SLC governing termination fees, they only provide a framework for Supplier responsibilities. We won a valuable clarification about the abuse and intentions of those Conditions. I see this very similarly and I suspect we will see an increasing volume of such complaints,because of recent price hikes and ever more aggressive policing of DD's.Someone along the way will take up the challenge and have it tested.

Ben,you keep on throwing out the challenge to DD and myself to ask Ofgem. I think we have both have a good and ongoing track record of doing exactly that. Why don't you ask them?

BenNevis

backfoot,

I know the first part of your post is directed to jalexa but I’m sure he won’t mind if I post a response. I’d just like to say that I can’t remember seeing anything that jalexa has written that indicates that he’s overacted to any comments from any source let alone massively as you’ve suggested.

On the main issue there was a time when if a worker needed a loan to buy (say) a new cooker he’d go to his boss and ask for a loan that would then be paid back over a number of weeks by deducting an agreed amount from his weekly wage packet and even more common were requests for “subs” until pay day. These loans and subs were almost always interest free. It was all about being a good and caring employer.

All this worked fine for generations until a new generation of bosses took over all clued up in monetary policy and cash flow. Their attitude was that their businesses weren’t banks and that if employees needed money that was what banks were for. I imagine that’s why we’re now seeing a proliferation of pay day loan companies etc. I don’t care much for this new hard approach by employers but I find it hard to argue with the logic.

I imagine the energy companies have taken a similar view that they’re not in business to provide financial assistance for the public. They’re now reluctant to keep the old monthly DD system that subsidises customers’ high winter consumptions pending repayments that trickle back through the warmer months and again I don’t care much for this new hard approach but I find it hard to argue with the logic.

I see a difference between what you achieved on the exit fees front compared with this issue. On the former you were able to argue successfully that exit fees should not be charged when a customer exercises his right to reject a price increase. You got your teeth into that and mobilised Consumer Focus and pressured Ofgem into agreeing with you and taking action accordingly (something of a first) and I can’t overstate what an important achievement that’s been. They’re around 25million households in this country so the number of people who will benefit from your efforts is enormous and will continue to do so long into the foreseeable future.

But on this issue I for one can’t see what you can really get your teeth into that can be used to force Ofgem to support you and I hope I’m wrong but there you are. The only argument I can think of is that this “movement of the goalposts” as you rightly called it is counter to the public good generally because of the great hardship it’s causing etc but even that's more in the nature of a moral campaign than a legal argument.

I think the energy companies would argue that people need to sort out their finances properly but you might argue that it’s the duty of Ofgem to protect the public from practices such as this. I don’t think the Energy Ombudsman will want to become involved in doing Ofgem’s job for it BTW. Good luck with it anyway.:)

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

I imagine the energy companies have taken a similar view that they’re not in business to provide financial assistance for the public. They’re now reluctant to keep the old monthly DD system that subsidises customers’ high winter consumptions pending repayments that trickle back through the warmer months and again I don’t care much for this new hard approach but I find it hard to argue with the logic.

I see a difference between what you achieved on the exit fees front compared with this issue. On the former you were able to argue successfully that exit fees should not be charged when a customer exercises his right to reject a price increase. You got your teeth into that and mobilised Consumer Focus and pressured Ofgem into agreeing with you and taking action accordingly (something of a first) and I can’t overstate what an important achievement that’s been. They’re around 25million households in this country so the number of people who will benefit from your efforts is enormous and will continue to do so long into the foreseeable future.

But on this issue I for one can’t see what you can really get your teeth into that can be used to force Ofgem to support you and I hope I’m wrong but there you are. The only argument I can think of is that this “movement of the goalposts” as you rightly called it is counter to the public good generally because of the great hardship it’s causing etc but even that's more in the nature of a moral campaign than a legal argument.

I think the energy companies would argue that people need to sort out their finances properly but you might argue that it’s the duty of Ofgem to protect the public from practices such as this. I don’t think the Energy Ombudsman will want to become involved in doing Ofgem’s job for it BTW. Good luck with it anyway.:)

Lots of repetiton now.

So briefly,the DD schemes always were of benefit to the Suppliers. Hence 6% discount.

We differ on the view whether anything can be done. I explained that the EO would be my preferred route, but other routes may clarify it. It is their job to resolve energy complaints, not Ofgem.

You recognise the impacts, but prefer to accept the status quo. I don't.

I took the Termination Fee issue directly to OFGEM. Subsequently CF are taking a great interest.

You also seem to write as if it's my issue. All DD customers may affected to a greater or lesser extent. Anyone can take it forward.

BenNevis

backfoot wrote: »

Lots of repetiton now. Perhaps but considering the number and length of my posts on this thread some repetition is almost inevitable but I don’t think I’ve given you any cause for this cheap jibe.

So briefly,the DD schemes always were of benefit to the Suppliers. Hence 6% discount. Agreed.

We differ on the view whether anything can be done. I explained that the EO would be my preferred route, but other routes may clarify it. Time will tell.

It is their job to resolve energy complaints, not Ofgem. For individual complaints yes but not to make policy.

You recognise the impacts, but prefer to accept the status quo. I don't. I sense a tidal shift amongst all the energy companies towards spring alignment and IMO Ofgem knew this full well when drafting SLC 27 but chose to ignore the input of Consumer Focus.

I took the Termination Fee issue directly to OFGEM. Subsequently, CF are taking a great interest. My point exactly you carry some clout at Ofgem and CF and perhaps some dialogue with Ofgem might be possible.

You also seem to write as if it's my issue. All DD customers may affected to a greater or lesser extent. Anyone can take it forward. I thought it was your issue along with DirectDebacle. After all both of you have written extensively about it.

I had hoped that Ofgem’s SLC’s would have been a lot more helpful but there you are.

backfoot

A quick look at Ben's posting history reveals much.

A spat with DirectDebacle on the NPower gas sculpting thread after he done so much great work.(now has the gall to say how awesome it was)

A spat with the informed Jalexa over advice given with plenty of insults.

Now a series of tennis type exchanges with DD and myself on this NPower thread, offering little constructive help to customers but rather challenges to those who do try to help.

BenNevis

backfoot wrote: »

A quick look at Ben's posting history reveals much. Help yourself.

A spat with DirectDebacle on the NPower gas sculpting thread after he done so much great work.(now has the gall to say how awesome it was). My only dispute with DD was of a technical nature regarding the choice of dates re compensation.

A spat with the informed Jalexa over advice given with plenty of insults. I merely pointed out a flaw in the advice that jalexa gave on that occasion. Hardly earth shattering stuff. Also remember it was you and DD that gave jalexa such a rough time when he queried the strength of the basis of your argument. You even did a post that took the Mickey out of him. Later you tried to brush it off as “light hearted” but it looked very much like bullying to me.

Now a series of tennis type exchanges with DD and myself on this NPower thread, offering little constructive help to customers but rather challenges to those who do try to help. After so many robust posts on a number of threads by the pair of you regarding the overwhelming strength of the basis of your argument against spring aligning I raised a question and in the ensuing tennis match as you call it your whole argument fell apart.

If the best you can do is throw stuff like this at me then all you’re doing is showing yourself up. My posts have been polite to you and DD at all times and it’s a shame you had to resort to this trash.

DirectDebacle

BenNevis wrote: »

If the best you can do is throw stuff like this at me then all you’re doing is showing yourself up.

I take the opposite view. I believe your only intention of posting on this thread was to reduce it to 'trash'. You failed. All the relevant infromation had been given before your first post.

jalexa and backfoot are regular and respected posters on this site. They may disagree from time to time but from reading their posts, I believe their aim is, at all times, to offer the best advice they can and save others money.

Readers of your posts can make their own minds up of what your aims might be.

BenNevis

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I take the opposite view. I believe your only intention of posting on this thread was to reduce it to 'trash'. You couldn’t be more wrong. You failed. All the relevant infromation had been given before your first post. Well that’s not entirely true. The tone of your posts gave the impression that SLC 27 was strong enough to support your argument and it turned out it wasn’t the case.

jalexa and backfoot are regular and respected posters on this site. They may disagree from time to time but from reading their posts, I believe their aim is, at all times, to offer the best advice they can and save others money. And let’s not forget that you and backfoot gave jalexa a hard time when he queried what you appeared to be saying. I call that bullying.

Readers of your posts can make their own minds up of what your aims might be. I’m happy for anyone to do so. If you see anything dark in my posts it’s purely in your imagination. All I did was ask similar questions to jalexa’s the only difference is that I won’t be bullied. Jalexa was proved to be right all along.

I gave you every chance to prove the strength of your argument and you failed. It’s as simple as that. TBH I took on board backfoot’s point that spring aligning will cause hardship to a number of people and I offered what suggestions I could to help. I suggest you take another look at my posts if you think otherwise.

Bronnie

Further to my previous posts regarding the disproportionate proposed increase in my dd to £158 per month, I received a short phone call from npower this afternoon and the following email

This email is to confirm the details we discussed over the telephone regarding your direct debit payment amount.

I am pleased to confirm that I have reset your payment amount to £96 per month, starting from 07/11/2011. You will receive a letter to confirm this within the next 7-10 days.

I have calculated this amount taking into account of the cost your projected yearly usage which is around £1152 (excluding your annual direct debit discount of £100) spread across 12 months.

I trust this is to your satisfaction

The £96 figure was offered to me over the phone immediately and without any further discussion required on my part. I'm assuming the mere mention of SLC27 in my email did the trick, as it was otherwise a very short and to-the-point initial email requesting this review.



I'm wondering whetehr I should stay with them now actually. Since SP15 was withdrawn and Coop put up their price, Npower Online 24 is quite competitive. The other companies don't seem to be much better in their working practices from what I read on here and tbh, with all the research I've done, I'm feeling like I've got the measure of Npower and their little ways now. Could be a case of better the devil you know.....?!

backfoot

Great news Bronnie. :j

Not sure why the £100 DD discount wasn't factored in, but a result overall.

Well done and it shows that under scrutiny the Suppliers are trying it on.