E.On wants to double my Direct Debit payments!

DirectDebacle

SLC 27 is not an enabling condition. It is clear instructions to suppliers on how they are to manage DD accounts. That is why the term 'must' is used. It is not guidance or advice. It is the law.

It was made a SLC because Ofgem did not trust suppliers to follow mere guidance or advice.

Some suppliers, in my view, are breaking it and other consumer protection mechanisms, in order advantage themselves to the detriment of consumers.

Eon mis-leading information on how DD work I would suggest is one such example.

backfoot

DirectDebacle wrote: »

SLC 27 is not an enabling condition. It is clear instructions to suppliers on how they are to manage DD accounts. That is why the term 'must' is used. It is not guidance or advice. It is the law.

It was made a SLC because Ofgem did not trust suppliers to follow mere guidance or advice.

Some suppliers, in my view, are breaking it and other consumer protection mechanisms, in order advantage themselves to the detriment of consumers.

Eon mis-leading information on how DD work I would suggest is one such example.

Thanks DD,

You have explained it several times now in a clear and understandable way.

I really don't know why people don't get it. :wall:

Just looking at the impact such a policy would have makes it a non starter.

murphydog999

Eon doesn't seem to run on logic! They have recently 'because of my annual review' (only been with them since last December) said they were reducing my DD from £100 to £67. I questioned this 1, because I haven't had a years consumption yet and 2, it seems it bit strange when prices have just gone up and winter is on the way. I am quite happy with £100 so that is what we agreed.

A couple of weeks later I got a letter to say they were putting it up to £113!! It might have been different if I was in debit but I am well in credit, and am quite confident that £100 will be thereabouts, so yet again we have agreed £100.

I was advised it was because they are monitored by Ofgem they can't be seen to be overcharging people.

DirectDebacle

A couple of weeks later I got a letter to say they were putting it up to £113!! It might have been different if I was in debit but I am well in credit, and am quite confident that £100 will be thereabouts, so yet again we have agreed £100.

Without having the benefit of all your consumption and price details this is what I think has happened.

You joined in December last year (presumably with no debt on the account) and agreed a DD of £100 which should have covered your usage to this December.

As a result of an 'annual review' they reduced the DD to £67.

Quite rightly you think that an annual review will be done annually, in your case around December.

However Eon do an 'Annual review' which is not the same as an annual review. You might think there is no difference between an 'Annual review' and an annual review apart from an upper/lower case 'a'.

In the world of Eon an Annual review is a review designed to bring DD accounts to a zero balance in the spring each year.

I suspect that when your DD was set last December it was set at a level to ensure a zero balance in the spring and not this December as you would have expected.

It seems likely that this excessive DD was continued and a mid term review has thrown up the excessive credit balance and the DD was reduced as a result.

This mid term review may not have included a recent price change and they have reviewed the account again to factor in the price change. As a result they reset the DD to achieve a zero balance in the spring.

If the DD had been set correctly in the first place i.e. to achieve a zero balance in December, then by now your DD account would probably only have a relatively small credit balance. An appropriate upward adjustment to the DD may have been made to accomodate the price increase and achieve zero in December.

Of course any confusion between 'Annual review' and annual review is entirely accidental, coincidental and unintentional.

As Eon say to you, the last thing they would want to do is charge you more than they should. Ofgem said so.:rotfl:

woowoley

At the time when the account was in a large credit I rang up and they refunded it straight away.

jalexa

DirectDebacle wrote: »

SLC 27 is not an enabling condition. It is clear instructions to suppliers on how they are to manage DD accounts.

Oh, I think not (clear instructions). In fact if you read the the Consumer Focus comments on the proposed regulation you will see clear friction between the Ofgem "light touch" proposals which prevailed and a Consumer Focus preference for more prescription.

The first paragraph of the Ofgem decision document is quite revealing. It states "following concerns raised at the end of last year Ofgem reviewed suppliers' direct debit arrangements. Ofgem found no evidence of unjustified increases in direct debits nor of systematic errors".

So there we have it, no problems before the SLC27 additions, "official", but evident "problems" now. Embarrassing (for Ofgem) surely, except I don't think the Establishment does "embarrassment".

OTOH, Consumer Focus should at least be able to say "we told you so". I hope they do that publicly. And soon.

Incidently "12 months" period is mentioned several times in the Consumer Focus comments but the "light touch" SLC27 additions are silent on timing and period. Your reliance on "must" as a legal imperative is therefore somewhat ineffectual.

DirectDebacle

Oh, I think not (clear instructions). In fact if you read the the Consumer Focus comments on the proposed regulation you will see clear friction between the Ofgem "light touch" proposals which prevailed and a Consumer Focus preference for more prescription.

The first paragraph of the Ofgem decision document is quite revealing. It states "following concerns raised at the end of last year Ofgem reviewed suppliers' direct debit arrangements. Ofgem found no evidence of unjustified increases in direct debits nor of systematic errors".

So there we have it, no problems before the SLC27 additions, "official", but evident "problems" now. Embarrassing (for Ofgem) surely, except I don't think the Establishment does "embarrassment".

OTOH, Consumer Focus should at least be able to say "we told you so". I hope they do that publicly. And soon.

Incidently "12 months" period is mentioned several times in the Consumer Focus comments but the "light touch" SLC27 additions are silent on timing and period. Your reliance on "must" as a legal imperative is therefore somewhat ineffectual.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, other than SLC 27 and the reasons it was introduced, are beyond your comprehension.

I find it surprising you think there were no DD problems before SLC 27 and all the problems since its introduction are because of them.

I will discuss any points you would like to make on this subject as long as they are relevant.

As far as I can tell you have no real understanding of SLC 27 or the reasons why it was introduced.

Until you do I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to pointless posts peppered with a couple of selective sentences from a 37 page document.

jalexa

DirectDebacle wrote: »

...peppered with a couple of selective sentences...:D

Not such a hot peppering then.

The "selective sentences" are actually the first two sentences in the Ofgem Decision Document "overview". What part of "Ofgem found no evidence of unjustified increases in direct debits nor of systematic errors" don't you understand?

DirectDebacle

I understand it all. I understand Ofgem found no evidence of those two specific problems. That does not mean they didn't find any problems.

Clearly they did, which they have attempted to address in the SLC.

I would like to suggest that this discussion is carried on another thread perhaps this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/47425249#Comment_47425249

Or you can start one of your own. I am sure we don't want to be accused of thread hijacking. Most readers wanting to know why Eon doubled a DD are rapidly going to lose the will to live if all they can find is a discussion on SLC 27.:D

backfoot

I think we are seeing with increasing frequency more customers complaining about large movements in monthly direct debits.

What I have seen are a number of Supplier practices, which have or are developing to alter originally set amounts for little or no good reason.

I can only see, perhaps, two good reasons for a change. A price increase/decrease or a noticeable change in consumption pattern.

Instead, we are seeing changes because some suppliers amend the original start point of a 12 month DD period to some time in the spring.

Or others who have ill advisedly set up a system which reacts regularly to input of consumption data. (EDF)

Neither strand makes sense and will only cause customer confusion and more probably overpayments, which most customers cannot financially support.

Whatever,wordsmithing someone wants to do on the past Consultation Process or perceived arguments between the regulatory bodies, doesn't really matter.

The SLC now sets out the requirements and it is blatantly obvious to me, that varying a DD because of a 'replaced start point' or a monthly meter read, is in Breach of the Conditions.

In neither situation, could a plausible explanation be put forward by a Supplier to justify a DD variation.

Suppliers should be using the schemes to work with customers to manage their joint interests over a 12 month period.All this nonsense threatening to take customers off the scheme because they don't want to overpay is frankly ridiculous.