E.ON press the re-set button

Former_E.ON_Company_Representative:_Malc

E.ON_Company_Rep_Amanda wrote: »

Hi All

I'm sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns on this thread.

We're currently looking into this and will be back with you as soon as possible with some answers.

Amanda

Hi all

Sorry for the continued delay on these concerns.

We're awaiting the results of discussions at the top of the business. Don't have a time frame as of yet but it certainly won't be this week now.

Will let you know as soon as we know.

Malc

DirectDebacle

Thanks for the update Malc.

We're awaiting the results of discussions at the top of the business. Don't have a time frame as of yet but it certainly won't be this week now.

These guys will want to get this right and quite rightly should not be rushing. Remember the requirement to explain DD to customers was sprung upon suppliers quite suddenly only in Jan 2010.

Up until then there was obviously no need, either legally or morally, to tell customers why their bank accounts were being raided for any amount a supplier thought appropriate.

Ofgem should have given suppliers at least five years to sort that one out. It can't be easy.

Congratulations to the top dogs for addressing it so swiftly. Looks like E.On are ahead of the game.

It would be groundbreaking if E.On treated the DD scheme as simply an alternative way of customers paying for energy and smoothing their energy costs evenly over the 12 months from sign up.

Half way through February now and spring is almost upon us. Maybe we will know by then (E.On spring April-June).

j2011

I would rather pay for my gas and electricity by variable direct debit every month but Eon don't do that.

I would even pay every 3 months by direct debit but only if I was given enough time to give a meter reading to produce a bill and then move the money from my savings account to my current account before the direct debit came out.

And still get a direct debit discount. That is the only reason I pay by direct debit, because of the discount.

SnowMan

meggsy wrote: »

Yesterday they concentrated on their poetry

"I'm not ready for you to say goodbye
I know that mine's a confusing world
Different 'facts' and 'figures' you are constantly hurled
Now's the time to set things straight" etc.,

http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2172-energy-ombudsman-gets-poetic

ODE TO EON ON DIRECT DEBITS

Oh why are your increases so ridiculously big?
And the calculations a mystery to even Jimmy the Wig?
This Direct Debacle has gone on for too long
Abandon Spring review and admit you were wrong

jalexa

This is a completetely absurd situation. E.ON introduced the change wef 16 January 2012 but still can't explain it.

In a gushing press release Consumer Focus welcomed the change. I assume they understood what they were welcoming, so can we hear it from CF please.

CF should not be industry apologists. This is how they describe themselves...

Consumer Focus tackles the issues that matter to consumers, and aims to give people a stronger voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives.

Consumer Focus has strong legislative powers. These include the right to investigate any consumer complaint if they are of wider interest, the right to open up information from providers, the power to conduct research and the ability to make an official super-complaint about failing services.

DirectDebacle

To put it in perspective the DD policy that was introduced in April 2009 until the announced change from 16/1/12, has never been fully explained to customers. To my knowledge it has been challenged on MSE since February 2010 and up until recently no attempt to explain or justify it was forthcoming from an E.On rep.

I do not expect, after almost three years of ducking the original issue, E.On to come up with a full explanation of any changes made to it any time soon, if at all.

I view E.On press release as little more than a P.R. excercise in response to a press article and C.F. made their own P.R. response to that, most of which was about doorstep selling.

It is par for the course and all part of the game, most of which is played in private. In my opinion it has only just kicked off after a 3 year warm up.

C.F. cannot enforce suppliers to change policy. Ofgem can but the rules of the game have to be followed before Ofgem can intervene.

The wheels do grind sometimes, but much too slowly for our liking.

Personally I do not expect organisations such as C.F., Ofgem, F.S.A., HMRC etc to discuss their cases on public forums, even respected ones such as M.S.E.

We can do our bit by encouraging customers to complain to suppliers, C.F./C.D. and the Ombudsman and try to keep it in the public gaze through the press. There may be even a brave soul willing to try the county court route.

Anyway this thread is in 'the ownership' of E.On and it is up to them to make use of it. So far they haven't done much with it.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

This is a completetely absurd situation. E.ON introduced the change wef 16 January 2012 but still can't explain it.

In a gushing press release Consumer Focus welcomed the change. I assume they understood what they were welcoming, so can we hear it from CF please.

CF should not be industry apologists. This is how they describe themselves...

Consumer Focus tackles the issues that matter to consumers, and aims to give people a stronger voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives.

Consumer Focus has strong legislative powers. These include the right to investigate any consumer complaint if they are of wider interest, the right to open up information from providers, the power to conduct research and the ability to make an official super-complaint about failing services.

Whilst I share the same frustrations regarding the Regulator and CF , we need to be aware that there are procedures and protocols that both of these parties have to follow.

The collection of evidence to support succesful enforcement action does take time, resource and care. It is often innapropriate for such bodies to be seen to be commenting or prejudging issues while enforcement action is being contemplated or change is being negotiated.

I think we may find that CF were taking behind the scenes action to persuade Eon to address the complaints about their policy and move them voluntarily and earlier towards a solution.

I think Eon's 'reset' announcement sold a dummy to CF and hence the knee jerk positive reaction. They have been briefed otherwise now (by the experts) and I would expect that Eon's tactic will have spectacularly backfired. We are only a week or so on from those events.

Eon are the one's under scrutiny. They have operated an unfair policy for many years and have moved the goalposts of DD's to enhance their cash flow at customer's expense. For those already moved to spring alignment the damage is done.

They have not followed or attempted to abide by SLC 27 since its introduction. It was appalling that Ofgem and CF have not picked this up. I would imagine that evidence is now collated.

Eon have huge team of Marketing,Legal and Customer Service personnel who are obliged to follow these Licence Conditions and if not they should be brought to account.

We know that Eon already had a system of spreading payments over more than a year depending on start date. Such a system still caused massive DD hikes when the combination of consumption change and price increase occurred. We saw 60% increases, but even if it is 5% to 10% it is an inherently unfair system.None of this is clearly explained other than generic responses about zero spring balance.

As a first 'reset', I am distinctly unimpressed.

It appears that Eon's announcement was designed to preserve the old policy as far as possible. The delay and inabilty to answer the most basic queries about:

1. the real difference to the policy before.

2. the absence of contract inclusion for a system out of the norm.

3. consistent clear pre contract explanation.

4. the lack of supporting explanation for DD changes.

In my view, the more they cling on to their policy the bigger the hole they will dig. That is because there is an inherent conflict between the complexity of their policy and the explanations they are obliged to give under SLC27. ( points 2 to 4 above).

Now it is in focus with Ofgem, I think we will see catch up action for Eon and other suppliers. It may take time, but I think Ofgem must act now.

jalexa

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Personally I do not expect organisations such as C.F., Ofgem, F.S.A., HMRC etc to discuss their cases on public forums, even respected ones such as M.S.E.

I understand and accept that, but.....

Consumer Focus chose to say this in public...

"We welcome the move by E.ON to change its Direct Debit policy. It is a victory for common sense..."

I do not think it would be "discussing" it to explain factually either their understanding or *exactly* how E.ON described the "change" which is "a victory for common sense".

IIRC one of our members quoted the CF response when (the member) brought the Edf process to their attention. I recall a somewhat dismissive response.

RIP CF I say.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

I accept the emotions this emotive issue has caused but please be careful to target the principal problem.I will remove this post shortly and hope you would also reconsider.(you don't accept p.m's)

Sorry, I don't take lessons...

... on this because IMO the "principal problem" is facile regulation. An opinion I am entitled to express in an open forum.

DirectDebacle

I don't see the problem being caused by regulation, facile or otherwise.

In respect of E.On spring zero balance DD policy, this was up and running almost a year before Ofgem introduced SLC 27., which required suppliers to explain the basis upon which fixed DD payments were set.

If E.On had complied with the letter and spirit of this regulation then I am of the opinion that this policy would have died a natural death long ago. I believe negative consumer reaction would have not made continuance of it commercially viable.

Suppliers appear to take regulation as something they do not have a duty to comply with but rather a duty to circumvent, ignore or just simply break. They employ, probably at great expense, legal teams to assist in this and expect value for money from them. I imagine the zero spring balance DD policy has given such value since it was introduced.

Weak or tardy enforcement by Ofgem is a separate issue and is not wholly their fault. It is not the principal cause of E.On spring zero balance policy.

Suppliers have resources available to them that Ofgem or C.F. can only dream about. npower spend around half of Ofgems entire annual budget just on sponsoring cricket.

It should surprise no-one that the authorities are constantly playing catch-up.

Consumer protection, for years, has been over hyped and under resourced by all colours of govt.

We have to make do with what we have and I do not rub my hands with glee at the approaching demise of C.F. Rather than berate them we should be taking full advantage of whatever help they can give, as long as we have them. That goes for Consumer Direct too.

Our recourse to rectification reduced to local Trading Standards and CAB I do not see as a positive step forward in consumer protection.