EDF threatening legal action

andylevy

Today we received a letter from EDF threatening to access our property to install a pre-pay meter in the next 5 days unless we pay £41.
This comes after cancelling a direct debit which they set at £100 more than the amount we owed. We are currently £95 in credit.
By the way they took (by direct debit) what we owed then ANOTHER £135. The bank repaid this after we complained.

Having just called them about the threatening letter, guess what? , the £41 and threat has been removed!!

What EDF are desperate to do is fit a pre-paid meter if you refuse direct debit payments set at an amount that THEY decide and not what one owes. Of course we know that pre-paid cost more per unit.
Go figure!!:mad:

Do not accept what they say. Argue, nicely, keep complaining.

Cardew

Welcome to the forum.

Leaving aside EDF's apparently 'unfit for purpose' computer system, it is important that the principle of Direct Debit payments for all companies are understood.

With regard to the amount of the Direct Debit(DD) it is indeed the energy company who decide on the amount and has nothing to do with what is owed. We all sign a variable DD mandate agreeing that the energy company can take what THEY decide is needed, and that decision is based on their estimate of your future consumption. The only stipulation is the customer must be informed in advance of any change in payment. Note: informed, not negotiated.

In the real world the companies often make mistakes and experience of people on MSE over years is that they will generally listen to a reasoned agument and amend the amount of the DD. However at the end of the day it is a DD agreement and it takes two parties to agree. If the customer doesn't agree, they have the choice to pay off arrears and pay quarterly in future - and lose the DD discount.

Lastly no energy company wants to fit pre-paid meters.(PPM) Despite higher prices, but not higher than Standard tariffs(that changed a little while ago) it is a huge expense to change meters and they lose money on PPMs because the scheme is so expensive to administer.

jalexa

Cardew wrote: »

With regard to the amount of the Direct Debit(DD) it is indeed the energy company who decide on the amount and has nothing to do with what is owed. We all sign a variable DD mandate agreeing that the energy company can take what THEY decide is needed, and that decision is based on their estimate of your future consumption

I think that is an "interpretation too far" of the relevant Licence clause SLC27.15 "... the licensee must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the fixed amount of the regular direct debit payment is based on the best and most current information available (or which reasonably ought to be available) to the licensee, including information as to the quantity of gas which the licensee reasonably estimates has been or will be supplied under the relevant Domestic Supply Contract..."

There are several phrases there which a consumer could cite in a process of "negotiation" , or "dispute" as I would advocate, e.g. "best and current information", "reasonably...available" and "reasonably estimates". In addition, whether or not there is "negotiation", the preceeding clause SLC27.14 is explicit about aspects of the explanation the supplier is required to provide, something I have personally invited Edf to supply but which so far remains unprovided.

While I accept that an "excessive" debit balance should not arise if correctly managed by the supplier, actually the regulations are silent about whether it is "reasonable" that undocumented seasonal weighting combined with a first year "short year" calculation conspires to produce unanticipated (at the point of contract) excessive monthly payments. Unless I am very much mistaken I think this is something Consumer Focus may have to bring to the Regulator's attention.

Anybody affected by "unreasonble demands" (as determined by the consumer), should in the first instance invoke the suppliers Complaint's procedure and allege non-compliance with SLC27. I cannot anticipate the outcome, however the outcome could then inform Consumer Focus or the Energy Ombudsman could be invoked.

backfoot

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.


With regard to the amount of the Direct Debit(DD) it is indeed the energy company who decide on the amount and has nothing to do with what is owed. We all sign a variable DD mandate agreeing that the energy company can take what THEY decide is needed, and that decision is based on their estimate of your future consumption. The only stipulation is the customer must be informed in advance of any change in payment. Note: informed, not negotiated.

In the real world the companies often make mistakes and experience of people on MSE over years is that they will generally listen to a reasoned agument and amend the amount of the DD. However at the end of the day it is a DD agreement and it takes two parties to agree. If the customer doesn't agree, they have the choice to pay off arrears and pay quarterly in future - and lose the DD discount.

They may indeed take you off a DD scheme. If ,however,you could show that they had not abided by SLC27, then a successful complaint should get any lost discount reinstated and a further compensation amount paid.

Basically, they cannot make up amounts which aren't fully explained or understandable.

The annual estimate plus any arrears would form a reasonable basis to calculate the fixed monthly amount.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

While I accept that an "excessive" debit balance should not arise if correctly managed by the supplier, actually the regulations are silent about whether it is "reasonable" that undocumented seasonal weighting combined with a first year "short year" calculation conspires to produce unanticipated (at the point of contract) excessive monthly payments. Unless I am very much mistaken I think this is something Consumer Focus may have to bring to the Regulator's attention.

That issue has been raised directly with both CF and Ofgem.

I totally agree with your suggested process for dealing with an intransigent Supplier.:T

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

... With regard to the amount of the Direct Debit(DD) it is indeed the energy company who decide on the amount and has nothing to do with what is owed. We all sign a variable DD mandate agreeing that the energy company can take what THEY decide is needed, and that decision is based on their estimate of your future consumption. The only stipulation is the customer must be informed in advance of any change in payment. Note: informed, not negotiated.

No, mate, you keep going there, but you are sorely mistaken.

The Direct Debit Mandate is material to the contract between the customer and his bank. The customer cannot give a Direct Debit mandate for a closed amount.

The unlimited wording on the Direct Debit Mandate is only material to the contract between the customer of the utility and the utility in terms of fulfilling an obligation to have a DD payment mechanism in place. As ever, the actual amount is to be decided in agreement between utility customer and utility. The wording of the DD mandate is not part of that negotiation.

Cardew

DVardysShadow wrote: »

No, mate, you keep going there, but you are sorely mistaken.

The Direct Debit Mandate is material to the contract between the customer and his bank. The customer cannot give a Direct Debit mandate for a closed amount.

.

We really are at cross-purposes here.

Nobody disputes that the DD mandate is between customer and bank.

I sign a variable DD allowing my energy company to take, strangely;), variable amounts from my bank.

They must notify me of any increase.

All agreed so far?

The Utility company say I need to pay, say, £100 a month. I dispute this and say I want it to be, say, £5 a month.

We(utility company and I) discuss and cannot reach a compromise.

Obviously if £5 is reasonable and the 'intransigent' supplier has no justification for his £100 demand, then the regulations you quote come into force.

However what if I am being intransigent and the £100 is justified?

The company can legitimately end the DD agreement as(strangely) there is no agreement between us(the supplier and myself)

The general principle as I stated in post#2 is correct. We always seem to enter the realms of 'barrack room lawyers' quoting improbable scenarios.

In essence if the Utility Company and the Customer cannot reach agreement on the level of DD either party can end the DD agreement.

If the supplier can be shown to be unreasonable in their demands, then there is the opportunity for redress.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

We really are at cross-purposes here.

Nobody disputes that the DD mandate is between customer and bank.

I sign a variable DD allowing my energy company to take, strangely;), variable amounts from my bank.

They must notify me of any increase.

All agreed so far?

The Utility company say I need to pay, say, £100 a month. I dispute this and say I want it to be, say, £5 a month.

We(utility company and I) discuss and cannot reach a compromise.

Obviously if £5 is reasonable and the 'intransigent' supplier has no justification for his £100 demand, then the regulations you quote come into force.

However what if I am being intransigent and the £100 is justified?

The company can legitimately end the DD agreement as(strangely) there is no agreement between us(the supplier and myself)

The general principle as I stated in post#2 is correct. We always seem to enter the realms of 'barrack room lawyers' quoting improbable scenarios.

In essence if the Utility Company and the Customer cannot reach agreement on the level of DD either party can end the DD agreement.

If the supplier can be shown to be unreasonable in their demands, then there is the opportunity for redress.

That is a different argument from

Cardew wrote: »

... We all sign a variable DD mandate agreeing that the energy company can take what THEY decide is needed, and that decision is based on their estimate of your future consumption. The only stipulation is the customer must be informed in advance of any change in payment. Note: informed, not negotiated.

You are muddying the waters by introducing the concept of the variable DD mandate into the argument on how the DD level can be agreed between utility and customer.

Just on a picky point, the DD mandate is a unilateral mandate, not a DD agreement. So the Utility does not end it. They can only choose not to use it.

backfoot

The tone of post 2 gave me the impression that you have to accept the DD amount given by the Supplier.It implies that you either accept it or you get out of the Scheme.

SLC27 makes it clear that their are hurdles to follow in setting and communicating DD amounts. A Supplier withdrawing a Customer from the Scheme for invalid reasons would not only lose an individual complaint but may also be breaching their Licence obligations if it can be shown that such issues are systematic or frequent.

The mandate may allow amounts to be changed with the proper notice. We are really talking about regular fixed monthly direct debits rather than variable DD's which are used more for quarterly billing.

Cardew

backfoot wrote: »

We are really talking about regular fixed monthly direct debits rather than variable DD's which are used more for quarterly billing.

Without getting into semantics, all my monthly Utility company DDs give them the authority to change the amount taken from my bank as long as I am notified of a change.

The 'fixed' in this case is that they will take the monies on an agreed date.

Many companies ask you to sign up to a Direct Debit agreement in order for them to agree to accept your business, be it to pay utility bills, for loans or mortgages, or for a contract telephone, for example. Once you have signed the Direct Debit Mandate (DDM) you are giving the company concerned, permission to take payments from your account at agreed intervals (usually monthly, but sometimes quarterly or annually).
Although the amounts should be notified in advance, they can often change, and a lot of consumers are unaware that their bank cannot see how much will be taken until it actually goes out. The amount is not under your, or your banks, control. You are, however, covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee, should any type of mistake be made. Under this scheme your monies are guaranteed to be refunded immediately, once you complain to the bank.
Companies prefer the use of Direct Debits for a number of reasons. Firstly, as mentioned, they have control over the amounts to be deducted. Secondly, it is cheaper for them to administer, and finally, they are notified immediately if the payment is not made (due normally to a lack of funds in your account). Many will offer incentives for you to pay by DDM, such as reducing your bill

Strictly a variable DD is something like the DD I sign to have my credit card account paid in full each month.

However for the purposes of this discussion, all my gas and electricity companies(and water) have my authority to vary the amount they take from my account each month, as long as I am notified of any change in advance.

If I don't like the change - see earlier discussion.

jalexa

Cardew wrote: »

The 'fixed' in this case is that they will take the monies on an agreed date

From Edf online information...

"You always know exactly how much you’ll have to pay each month with monthly Direct Debit. It’s a fixed amount that we agree with you, to be paid on the date of your choice..."

http://www.edfenergy.com/products-services/for-your-home/direct-debit/direct-debit.shtml


To pick up something in your earlier post which I didn't quote previously...

...With regard to the amount of the Direct Debit(DD) it is indeed the energy company who decide on the amount and has nothing to do with what is owed...

To get into "semantics", a debit balance on a "fixed" monthly Direct Debit scheme is not "owed" (even if that word was first used by the OP). Neither is an account debit balance "owed" until after the due date for a properly submitted account. It's not clear from the OP whether or not (and when) that was issued.

For the benefit of others, it is not a trivial issue to cancel a direct debit arrangement when in a supply agreement (or tariff) requiring payment by Direct Debit. That said, in the fairly recent past, Edf telephone response times have been unacceptably long (who says - Edf) and email responses have failed a not very demanding 10 working day target (who says - personal experience). I could add that the eventual response (if it arrives at all) can somewhat robotically avoid answering the question yet disallow the email being "replied to".

[Tip] Reply to the general email address and you get a 5 day response target:D.

In some circumstances, though I don't recommend the practice, cancelling a DD mandate may seem the only course of action. Quite apart from the failure of Edf to explain in accordance with SLC27.14, the status of their customer service would be relevant in any formal complaint about their handling of a similar case.