EDF Energy: upping direct debits by random, huge & unnecessary amounts

snowcat53

Am curious- why if you're in credit are you asking them to put your DDs up?

CelticStar

Thanks everyone for the posts, I've read them all with interest. Just to update this 'cause I believe in giving companies a fair review, I contacted EDF Energy for a second time last night via an email address I was given by a rep on here when this happened the first time and I received a telephone call today during which everything was resolved and the direct debit put back down to the right amount. The person I spoke to was really helpful and has said that if ever this happens I can contact her again and she will amend the DD to its correct amount. It is so much easier when you have an actual person to deal with rather than just waiting days either on the phone or via email.

BenNevis

jalexa wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowcat53
Question - Is it correct they have to demonstrate how they calculated the new figure if you ask?


Well let me quote the relevant regulation...
"27.14 The licensee must provide to each such Domestic Customer an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis upon which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined. "

Make up your own mind, my answer is "yes", but I would go further and say that "provide" (unqualified) means it should be provided without being asked.

I fully agree with you that the explanation must be provided “…without being asked…” or else I believe the wording would’ve said “…provide upon request…”

As for when the explanation should be provided again there’s no words to cover this but common sense dictates it should be supplied no later than when the customer is told of the proposed DD increase.

As for the explanation itself I’d say it should include the actual calculation showing how the new DD figure is arrived at. I just don’t see how any explanation without the actual calculation could be fully understood by customers and that’s the whole point of SLC 27.14.

Judging from the number of posts by dissatisfied customers on this energy forum as a whole there’re many energy companies that’ve deliberately chosen to ignore the obvious interpretation of Standard Licence Condition 27.14. IMO they’re in breach of SLC 27.14 as a result yet Ofgem says nothing and does nothing about it. A simple letter from Ofgem to the energy companies (and the press) clarifying the position would do the trick.

jalexa wrote: »

My advice is to raise a formal complaint on an issue that can be made stick. The increase is not a good issue if it is rescinded. Better I think to go for the lack of clear explanation. No clear explanation by 8 weeks, go for an Energy Ombudsman referral. I do not know what the Energy Ombudsman will make of the issue but it will inform the next step.

I seem to be in a minority of one on this but as I’ve posted on other threads on this subject I feel that there’s a number of points that combine to make a strong argument that these energy companies are also in breach of SLC 27.15. If the Energy Ombudsman agrees with that argument then the DD increase is invalid even if an explanation is given. If the EO disagrees there would’ve been no harm done anyway. Other than this I fully agree with you FWIW.

snowcat53

BenNevis wrote: »

I seem to be in a minority of one on this but as I’ve posted on other threads on this subject I feel that there’s a number of points that combine to make a strong argument that these energy companies are also in breach of SLC 27.15.

Relatively new to this but on the face of it I agree with you.

Presumably it depends on the interpretation of 'the best and most current information available', but this must surely be that which best predicts actual use.

BenNevis

snowcat53 wrote: »

Relatively new to this but on the face of it I agree with you.

Presumably it depends on the interpretation of 'the best and most current information available', but this must surely be that which best predicts actual use.

Many thanks for that post snowcat.

I believe that the only sensible way that SLC 27.15 can be interpreted is that if an energy company wishes to depart from the established method of calculating a customer’s DD based on a full 12months in favour of a different method it must already have in the customer’s contract a condition that permits it. Not only that but SLC 27.15 indicates that such a condition must be a principal term.

I believe that Ofgem have already indicated that principal term doesn’t mean something buried away in the small print. I’d take that to mean it must be a headline term that customers can easily see before they sign up.

If I’m right then any energy company that increases its customers DD using a lesser period than 12months is in breach of SLC 27.15 unless the customers contracts include the necessary principal term.

There's for sure jalexa’s indisputable line of argument that any energy company that fails to provide customers with a proper explanation of its calculation of DD payments fails to comply with SLC 27.14 and is in breach of it. I’ve yet to see a post from anyone who’s received a proper explanation that fully explains how their new DD payment was calculated. So IMO all of the companies concerned have no right to increase their customers DD payments in the way they have done.

Without a doubt that’s why when customers complain the companies first stall and then give way and agree to reduce the DD figure. If they’d had it all sewn up in the contract and in compliance with SLC 27.14 & 27.15 I bet they’d have refused to reduce the DD’s of customers who’d complained.

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

I believe that the only sensible way that SLC 27.15 can be interpreted is that if an energy company wishes to depart from the established method of calculating a customer’s DD based on a full 12months in favour of a different method it must already have in the customer’s contract a condition that permits it. Not only that but SLC 27.15 indicates that such a condition must be a principal term.

If I’m right then any energy company that increases its customers DD using a lesser period than 12months is in breach of SLC 27.15 unless the customers contracts include the necessary principal term.

Hey dude,

You previously said many times things like:

'I just don’t see how Ofgem can hold a company in breach of its license conditions unless it actually breaches the actual wording of one of those conditions. So can you please quote the wording you have in mind?'

Was it post 54 of this thread which has created this epiphany?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3531893

Anyway, always nice to have convinced the sceptics.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Anyway, always nice to have convinced the sceptics...

At the risk of being deemed "franky absurd" or a "dude" even, I have to say that I am troubled by part of the regulation you quoted in post 54, "...the fixed amount of the regular direct debit payment is based on the best and most current information available..."

Clearly "fixed amount of the regular direct debit payment" must mean something, "fixed" and "regular" are fairly descriptive terms. *I* however cannot see, in the absence of an explict contract reference to "12 months" an "obvious" (sorry I forget the exact word you used) connection with the supply start date, and in the absence of that why more up to date tariff pricing or actual meter reads doesn't comply with, or satisfy, "most current information".

I said I am troubled with the imprecision of the regulation but not half as much as I am troubled with the apparent deafening silence of Ofgem. They have already paid for the phrase "it was always the intention to capture..." so why don't they just wheel it out again. On this occasion I largely absolve Consumer Focus because they anticipated problems in this area, informed Ofgem, who simply dissed the concerns.

I fear Ofgem is not "big enough" to say sorry we were wrong.

backfoot

Hi Jalexa,

You are not the dude.:rotfl:

Ofgem and CF have details of the issue and the wheels of regulation turn slower than an england centre forward. The referals have coincided with lots of other 'initiatives' which Ofgem are playing with so maybe they have taken a lower priority.

Of course, you may be right or my optimism may prevail and they will react as they did with Termination Fees. I can but hope. Or Eon as part of their 'Reset' will back up their fine words with action.

We can wordsmith the Licence Condition till the cows come home but common sense will hopefully prevail and something will change.

I was simply amused by the full u turn of the dude who had spent so much time arguing the toss with DirectDebacle only to see his recent posts arguing exactly what DD had been saying about Contract Conditions from the very start and now adopting my own post quoted above.

Have you had chance to add your opinions to either Ofgem or CF? The Forum debate has some but only limited impact.:)

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Have you had chance to add your opinions to either Ofgem or CF? The Forum debate has some but only limited impact.:)

I am currently waiting for my Edf "complaint" to be responded to or to time out at which time I will consider the next step.

I am minded to "test" the fitness of the Energy Ombudsman scheme first.

I agree that "common sense" or reasonableness, should be a major influence.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

I am currently waiting for my Edf "complaint" to be responded to or to time out at which time I will consider the next step.

I am minded to "test" the fitness of the Energy Ombudsman scheme.

Yes, that would be interesting. That would relate to a case of incompetence in how EDF make up their figures whenever the system does it.

It wouldn't stop you referring the Eon policy to CF/ Ofgem and adding your arguments to those put forward by DD and myself, along with specific complaints which CF will have received. Or indeed,now Ben agrees he could add his contribution.