E.ON press the re-set button

jalexa

It's disappointing that the E.ON reps are too busy dealing with other customers to have yet provided promised answers:D. However in consumer matters "no answer" can often be a good answer to have.

I was interested to note the Times article smoking out the E.On marketing director in a statement that the "spring review" direct debit policy wasn't part of the account terms and conditions. As a matter of fact that may be true but also irrelevent, if so a "weasel" explanation, since for some tariffs payment by Direct Debit is a contractual requirement.

I'm surprised the marketing director didn't mention the following clause taken from the terms and conditions...

"If you pay by monthly Direct Debit we may amend your payment amount if your consumption varies, you switch plans, you have an outstanding balance or there is a price change. We will contact you as required in the Direct Debit Guarantee."

So Direct Debits may be amended but in that case all the accuracy and explanatory requirements of SLC27 would apply.

I also note the phrase "outstanding balance". I am certain that has an accounting definition entirely different from account debit balance. Perhaps the E.On reps could comment (or not:D) what is the *exact* definition of "outstanding balance".

DirectDebacle

I was interested to note the Times article smoking out the E.On marketing director in a statement that the "spring review" direct debit policy wasn't part of the account terms and conditions. As a matter of fact that may be true but also irrelevent, if so a "weasel" explanation, since for some tariffs payment by Direct Debit is a contractual requirement

Again you make good points in your observations but I am of the opinion that it is relevant that the zero spring balance policy is not a term and condition.

Section 7. Payment.

Is the part of the T&C's you quote re 'outstanding' balance. The first paragraph of this section states,

"You agree to pay us as set out in Your Payments detailed overleaf unless subsequently agreed otherwise. Payment is due immediately if we send you a bill"

Now I am not a legal person but I would say that payment is a Prinicipal Term and Condition and that the 'Your Payments detailed overleaf' if not a Principal Term and Condition would be construed as a term and condition.

That being the case then the customer is contracted to pay in accordance with the terms of 'Your Payments'. We know that the payment details will not refer to the zero spring balance policy as E.On have publicly stated they are not a term and condition.

There are other payment methods other than fixed regular DD but for the purposes of this thread they can be ignored. For a tariff where it is a T&C that the only payment method is DD and other tariffs where the DD option is selected, one would expect the 'Your Payments' section to have precise details.

As we know SLC 27 requires the basis upon which the amount is set to be explained to the customer. One would expect that the details contained in 'Your Payments' in the terms and conditions would fall in line with the SLC 27 explanation or vice versa. The basis upon which the initial DD is set should be clear from the outset and shown in 'Your Payments' details.

Consumer contracts are required to be in plain, clear, simple language and easy to understand. Any ambiguity will be interpreted in favour of the consumer. This principle is adopted by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, 2008. These regulations are quite clear on how contracts should not contain words that could mislead. Neither should they omit relevant facts.

The problem E.On have is that they have a policy which they would like to be a term and condition but may well feel would be detrimental to increasing customers and/or retaining existing ones were it to be made so.

Their way round this is to keep the details of their policy hidden and present their DD scheme as the usual DD scheme most customers are used to. It appears from the anecdotal evidence that this is the case and further that they intimate to customers, when challenged, that it is a term and condition. Non compliance with their policy will be treated as a breach of contract, customers are threatened they will be moved to other payment plans/tariffs and possibly lose discounts or other favourable terms as a result. This is not their only tactic.

Earlier in this thread I said I thought that if the zero spring balance policy were a T&C it would be good as E.On would then have to explain it. Their present position is in my view unacceptable and customers should be challenging it as vigourously as possible.

If I were a customer of E.On and subjected to such treatment then I would be pursuing them for breach of contract. I believe I would have a strong case. But as already said, I am only a layman.

backfoot

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The problem E.On have is that they have a policy which they would like to be a term and condition but may well feel would be detrimental to increasing customers and/or retaining existing ones were it to be made so.

Their way round this is to keep the details of their policy hidden and present their DD scheme as the usual DD scheme most customers are used to. It appears from the anecdotal evidence that this is the case and further that they intimate to customers, when challenged, that it is a term and condition.

Last year, I obtained a quote from Eon. Not from a comparison site but directly by phone to Eon.The exact date is recorded on the forum.

I gave specific consumption details and asked for a quote.

I was given an annual cost and a specific monthly DD quote. It was on a 1/12th's basis. I pushed the assistant specifically to confirm this monthly charge and was assured it was correct.

At no stage was the zero spring policy mentioned or when given a second chance was there any clarification that a premium rate would be needed.

A secret shopper could of course retest this and see how the new announcement is voluntarily explained.

jalexa

Looks like we are going to have the speculate on the answers until answered.

Can anybody explain what is meant by "Q1 adequacy review"?

Can anybody explain *exactly* what is meant by starts in the second half of the year will have "up to 18 months" to achieve a zero-balance? How many months for each month from June to December (currently 12 decreasing to 6)?

Is "spring-balance" now "dead" for second half starts?

JimmyTheWig

jalexa wrote: »

Looks like we are going to have the speculate on the answers until answered.

Can anybody explain what is meant by "Q1 adequacy review"?

Can anybody explain *exactly* what is meant by starts in the second half of the year will have "up to 18 months" to achieve a zero-balance? How many months for each month from June to December (currently 12 decreasing to 6)?

Is "spring-balance" now "dead" for second half starts?

My guess is that the year runs from spring to spring. Those joining in the 6 months following spring will need to achieve a zero balance in the next spring (i.e. between 12 and 6 months from their start date). Those joining in the 6 months before spring will need to achieve a zero balance in two spring's time (i.e. between 18 and 12 months from their start date).

Obviously this is muddied by the fact that "spring" is a three month definition and we don't know how they setermine which customer will have their review date at which point in spring.

jalexa

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

My guess is that the year runs from spring to spring.

Ah, so in E.ON speake, the "second half of the year" is the first half of everybody else's year. The Germans vill make us fit to their notion of "year". That fits. Seems ludicrous that the forum rep hasn't seen fit to answer that first time I asked.

JimmyTheWig

That's only my guess, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

backfoot

The procedural changes to support the DD change were introduced back in January 2012 and the Press Announcement came later.

So the supporting IT to allow Customer Service staff to give accurate DD quotes or advice to customers is already in place.

For compliance with SLC 27, the supporting IT must also have been specified to allow DD Reviews to be automated to fit into these new guidelines.

It would be impossible and unfeasible not to have fully specified and automated documentation produced to provide ' clear and understandable explanations' at the time any DD change. Manual production over millions of DD customers would be impossible.

Fundamentally, I personally doubt, given all the variables that will exist from a variable spring quarter, individual annual review dates, other review dates, implementing price changes, and different contract starting points, that such complexity was specified so quickly.

So either Eon do have the procedures specified and all the answers are available clearly and understandably or they are not and the change announced is not Licence Condition compliant.

meggsy

jalexa wrote: »

Ah, so in E.ON speake, the "second half of the year" is the first half of everybody else's year. The Germans vill make us fit to their notion of "year". That fits. Seems ludicrous that the forum rep hasn't seen fit to answer that first time I asked.

Jalexa you might find that E.on have a 'tariff year' as npower did in 07. In npowerland a tariff year was seven months, so anything is possible Can't wait to see the reply

backfoot

I want to join Eon on the 30th November, when my contract ends.

I have gas only at £1200 per annum. (2/3 of the amount is from October to March).

I currently pay my Supplier £100 per month. I have no debt on switching.

What is my regular fixed monthly DD from Eon?

When is my review (spring aligned date) date?