Big hikes in direct debit payments - EON

BenNevis

jalexa wrote: »

I commend that everybody interested reads the remarkably prescient Consumer Focus comments on the proposed SLC27 regulation….

Thanks jalexa for the link to a very interesting document. Also thanks for the wording of Consumer Focus that you’ve quoted which IMO shows CF clearly considers that there’s an “established principle” that payments “should be spread across a 12-month period.”

I found this very useful because while the energy companies can’t say that SLC 27 specifically permits interim reviews they’d argue that the wording is ambiguous and so provides a loophole. On the other hand if the likes of CF talk of an “established principal” etc there can only be one interpretation of SLC 27 and that’s as CF says namely that “payments should be spread across a 12-month period.”

If that’s the only reasonable way of interpreting SLC 27 (especially SLC 27.15) then IMHO any energy company failing to follow that interpretation of it is in breach of it and any interim reviews should be set aside and replaced with proper reviews based on a 12 month forecast.

I’ve a hunch that any customer on the wrong end of an interim review who points this out to an energy company in the form of a formal complaint will have his direct debit immediately recalculated on a 12-month basis. The alternative will be for the energy company to risk a customer going to the energy ombudsman and winning.

BenNevis

Hello Direct Debacle. I’ll try and deal with your questions in post#67 as best I can but first I think we need to look at where we’re now and how we’ve arrived here. I first became aware of this issue in another thread entitled “Npower bill – had an increase?” (link below)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3519507

At that time you appeared to be arguing that SLC 27 prohibits spring aligning. For example in post#32 of that thread you’d said in response when jalexa wrote …”I think we are basically on the same side of the consumer fence.” You answered

Not on the issue of suppliers attempts to have all DD accounts at zero by spring.

SLC 27 prohibits this type of action. It requires that suppliers set DD payments at an appropriate level in accordance with the Domestic Supply Contract and that as far as possible that this is maintained throughout the life of the contract. The reasoning behind this is to avoid excessive credit or debit balances occurring.

As an example a customer entering into a DSC which is for 12 months in October and requires monthly DD payments would not expect the DD payments to be set at a level to achieve a zero balance by the end of March.

This would be in breach of SLC 27.

At that point it looked as though you’d got it all sown up very nicely until Jalexa queried how you’d come to that conclusion asking which paragraph or phrase in SLC 27 you’d in mind. You replied in post#39 with more than a little sarcastic condescension but failed to answer his question directly.

Later in that thread I raised similar questions but it soon became clear that you couldn’t back your statement up with any evidence. In fact all I got was stupid and abusive posts from backfoot and an accusation from you that I was trying to “trash” the thread when I was merely curious as by then I’d read SLC 27 and couldn’t find anything to support your statement.

When I posted in #50 of this thread attempting to demonstrate that SLC 27.15 can only reasonably be interpreted in a way that supports your statement you ignored this totally and didn’t reply. When I added to my thoughts in post#66 you replied but you now appear to be taking the opposite view to what you wrote as quoted above and now seem intent in disproving my point of view. I only posted in an effort to help.

Be that as it may here are my answers to your questions (my answers in red).

Why would Ofgem want to prevent spring alignment? Ofgem explained in their decision document it was not their intention to be prescriptive when drafting SLC 27. In what way is that 'not acceptable behaviour for a regulator'? The position taken by Ofgem appears to have resulted in genuine financial hardship to a significant percentage of the public. It’s Ofgems duty to see fair play for the public.

Why do you say SLC 27.15 is poorly worded? I feel it’s ambiguous as it’s open to different interpretations. How would you word it? I’d have addressed the ambiguity so that the public and energy companies knew specifically and beyond any doubt what method/methods of DD calculation were acceptable.

If your interpretation of SLC 27.15 is correct then you are successfully arguing against your opinion that 'spring balance' should have been specifically prevented in the licence conditions. Not so at all as said above the present wording is ambiguous but I’ve attempted to show that despite this there’s only one way it can be reasonably interpreted. Also where there’s ambiguity I’d suggest that it should normally be decided in favour of the public rather than the energy company concerned.

My view is that SLC 27 is well drafted and I see no weasel words nor any reason for tariffs or seasonal consumption to be included. Your view now seems to conflict with what you wrote as quoted above. Don’t you agree?

I suspect the reason Eon have not so far published a full description and explanation of their DD policy is because to do so would, in all probability, drive customers towards other suppliers. I agree but there should be a level playing field for all energy companies and a full and genuine clearness on this matter for the public.

Why don't you write to Ofgem and suggest they explain their position? Looking at both yours and backfoot’s posting histories you’ve both got clout with CF and Ofgem so I can’t understand why you don’t write to them as it’d be better coming from the likes of you than me.

lower_3

I had the dreaded letter today.......increase in payments from £58 a month to £102........this is despite my actual usage being down by 26% and a constant credit in my account......anyhow, rang them, got them very confused, disagreed with their maths, asked how to escalate my complaint etc......have got the DD down to £85 until January, they wouldn't budge any lower......I've always submitted regular readings, but have decided daily ones from now on as they told me not to due their system would not be able to compute all the data........lol

backfoot

lower wrote: »

I had the dreaded letter today.......increase in payments from £58 a month to £102........this is despite my actual usage being down by 26% and a constant credit in my account......anyhow, rang them, got them very confused, disagreed with their maths, asked how to escalate my complaint etc......have got the DD down to £85 until January, they wouldn't budge any lower......I've always submitted regular readings, but have decided daily ones from now on as they told me not to due their system would not be able to compute all the data........lol

Well done. It is clear that Eon's policy and procedures have no foundation when challenged. Anecdotal evidence is showing that they back down under threat of formal complaint. :T

jalexa

lower wrote: »

...I had the dreaded letter today.......increase in payments from £58 a month to £102........this is despite my actual usage being down by 26% ...

Did the letter state the usage being projected forward and used as the basis for the calculation? Do you agree with the usage assumption?

On the desire to scr*w the billing system with daily readings, I respectfully suggest you provide no more readings until requested. Daily readings provided at this time of year will likely show very high seasonal consumption, possibly not to your advantage.

DirectDebacle

BenNevis wrote: »

Hello Direct Debacle. I’ll try and deal with your questions in post#67 as best I can...

It’s Ofgems duty to see fair play for the public.
This is ok.

Also where there’s ambiguity I’d suggest that it should normally be decided in favour of the public rather than the energy company concerned.No need to suggest it. This principle has been part of consumer regulations for many a year. A reminder does no harm.

I agree but there should be a level playing field for all energy companies and a full and genuine clearness on this matter for the public. You agree with me.

The remainder of your post is drivel.

BenNevis

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The remainder of your post is drivel.

I’m sure no one is fooled by your attempt to hide behind this rude remark.

You know full well that my post#73 was accurate as I copied and quoted your own words back at you. You’ve been caught out posting opposing viewpoints on this issue on different posts and now when that’s put to you all you can do is become abusive. It’s not good enough is it?

You’re very picky as to which of my answers you’ve replied on but that’s only to be expected from you.

Let’s face facts here and that’s when jalexa and later me asked you on what basis you’d written the words quoted in my previous post you ducked it. You couldn’t back up your own words and instead you’ve resorted to sarcasm and abuse …. and it’s not for the first time. I’m seeing a pattern here and it doesn’t just involve posts addressed to me. You don’t have to be rude and sarcastic to people just because it doesn’t fit in with your views nor when simple questions are being asked.

Funny thing is that I’m genuinely interested in helping in this matter and I’ve offered a few points I’d felt might tip the scales in favour of the public but I’ve received no support from you (or backfoot) at all just the usual sarcasm and rudeness (that’s getting boring) but it doesn’t make sense.

SLC 27 prohibits this type of action. It requires that suppliers set DD payments at an appropriate level in accordance with the Domestic Supply Contract and that as far as possible that this is maintained throughout the life of the contract. The reasoning behind this is to avoid excessive credit or debit balances occurring.

As an example a customer entering into a DSC which is for 12 months in October and requires monthly DD payments would not expect the DD payments to be set at a level to achieve a zero balance by the end of March.

This would be in breach of SLC 27.

You wrote these words do you stand by them yes or no?

Mitonski

I've just had my letter through... 100% increase from £42 to £84 on a one bed flat... I am, I admit £5 in debit. This thread has been total information overload on best course of action. I called EON up but didn't get any wiggle room from them. Not sure whether to switch provider and try to aim for a middle ground DD price or try to drive EON down a bit. I think there may be a visit to compare sites tonight.

jalexa

Mitonski wrote: »

...This thread has been total information overload on best course of action. I called EON up but didn't get any wiggle room from them...

A formal approach is to ask for a clear written (or email) explanation that Eon considers is compliant with Standard Licence Condition 27.14, something all suppliers are required to provide. A failure to provide this information would be reasonable grounds for a formal complaint. Then if you like, share the information with the forum.

A £5 debit at this time is probably an indication that you are not paying enough. That is not something that switching supplier will necessarily solve. Be aware that a large proportion of your annual heating fuel can be consumed in just a few winter months. Is that electricity or gas?

Have you your own idea what monthly payment would be accurate?

BenNevis

lower wrote: »

I've always submitted regular readings, but have decided daily ones from now on as they told me not to due their system would not be able to compute all the data........lol

I can understand why you’ve posted this but I’ve got to agree with jalexa in advising you against any attempt to foul up their computer system. I know you’ve got the hump with them but this isn’t the right thing to do IMHO especially when you’ve been warned by them not to do it. Your post might be taken as an attempt to incite others to follow your example and if they did and damage was caused…..unlikely but hey why take the risk?

It’s a forum and yeah we’ll curse the energy companies but anything we do shouldn’t be irresponsible. If you’re not happy with what’s been offered so far think about making a written complaint and demand that they give you an explanation of their calculation of your revised payment as it’s your right under SLC 27.14 that’s if you haven’t got it already. If it’s annoyed you enough to kick up a stink why don’t you challenge the company’s calculation as not complying with SLC 27.15.