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

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

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

To reflect further on your earlier post, specifically the relevance of the supply start date, actually you are quite right. Can't speak for all posters calculations, but in relation to meter readings, in my particular case I can demonstate that Edf haven't used current readings to adjust the projected (weighted) consumption to the spring "annual-review". Had they used a similar weighting they would have seen a 15% reduction. In addition their assumption includes approx 20% excess consumption from a particularly severe winter that IMO should not be projected forward. They are only using the current reading as an excuse to do a recalculation to a different date than was used to correctly calculate the original payment. So a nice little 35% earner.

Basically we are all paying for the fine which is surely on its way.

BenNevis

Hi backfoot

I think I should remind you that on another thread Direct Debacle wrote these words

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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 know that neither jalexa nor later me could find any wording in any part of SLC 27 that contained any such prohibition and separately we asked if Direct Debacle could point out the wording that contained this prohibition and that’s why I wrote these words below that you’ve quoted i.e.

“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?”

We all know and all agree now that there’s no prohibitive wording in SLC 27 especially in SLC 27.15.

Thanks for the link to your post #54 that I’d not read before so it’d no bearing on my thinking at all. Now I’ve looked at it I see you’ve relied on the wording from SLC 27.15 “…the best and most current information available…” your argument being that this requires a calculation based on 12months usage. You’ve even said

“It is frankly absurd to think any other interpretation could be made from this.”

Trouble is for a range of reasons I think the energy companies can very easily demolish your argument, e.g. they might say that they’d used the best info available and then applied their own methodology to calculate the new DD. I’m afraid your argument isn’t strong enough to be successful as far as I can see. I hope I’m wrong but hey there you are.

On November 19th it struck me that although SLC 27.15 has no prohibitive wording that would put these companies plainly in breach and that SLC 27.15’s wording is inexcusably unclear still maybe there’s some ammo in this clause anyway and so I posted what I’d hoped might help. The first point of my argument is contained in the 6th & 7th bullet points of that post (copied below) the other bullet points being supporting points.

BenNevis wrote: »

• SLC 27.15 begins by saying that an energy company can opt out of this section if it includes a Principal Term in its customer contract. Those words wouldn’t be necessary unless Ofgem intended S27.15 to preserve the established 12 monthly method as the standard method & that any company wishing to chose another method can only do so if it’s a Principal Term in the customer’s contract that says it can do this.

• So IMO unless an energy company has a Principal Term in its customers contract then it’s in breach of SLC 27.15 if it departs from the established 12 month method.
  
  

I believe that this is the only way that any reasonable person could interpret SLC 27.15 especially when my other bullet points are taken into consideration. If I’m right then the companies concerned are all in breach of it unless they’ve already included the necessary principal term in the contract of every customer concerned and we all know that none of them have done that.


Your post and my post could when you’ve had a quick look be saying the same thing and to a small amount they do overlap as we’ve both mentioned the principal term but that’s where the similarity ends.

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

Your post and my post could when you’ve had a quick look be saying the same thing and to a small amount they do overlap as we’ve both mentioned the principal term [STRIKE]but that’s where the similarity ends.[/STRIKE]

You got it. You finally plagiarised the arguments of DD and myself and still can create a difference. :rotfl:

DirectDebacle

SLC 27 is being over analysed and IMO is not the main issue.

For most customers the problem is not whether SLC 27. is being complied with.Their problem is that DD payments are higher than they anticipate and discover it is because of a zero spring balance policy, the application and consequence of which was not made clear to them.

There are two Principal Terms and Conditions which will be found in all domestic contracts.

1. The supplier supplies the energy under the terms of the contract.

2. The customer pays for it under the terms of the contract.

Many tariffs now require payment by DD as the only payment method available for that tariff. It is a term and condition. Where other payment methods are available the selected method will also be a term and condition.

It is worth noting that Eon state their spring zero balance policy does not form part of their terms and conditions. Therefore to enforce such a policy is a breach of the terms and conditions.

EDF DD payment terms are here. A fixed regular DD payment.

If the monthly DD is calculated on the basis of cost of annual usage/12 then that will form part of the contract and will also fall within the DD payment method that SLC 27 applies to.

My view is that a spring zero balance DD scheme does not fall into the category of a fixed regular DD except for those that naturally have a spring anniversary date.

Therefore if a customer has a DD initially set on the basis of cost of usage/12 and is subsequently required to make DD payments to achieve a zero spring balance (which would not normally apply) there has been:

1. a breach of contract

2. a possible breach of SLC 27.

A breach of contract is the most serious and a breach of SLC 27 would support such a claim. If SLC 27 was complied with, compliance would not detract from the breach of contract claim.

I would suggest that a customer could properly claim that enforcing a spring zero balance policy would be of significant disadvantage to the customer. Such a change should therefore have been made in compliance with SLC 23. 3(b) et. seq.

The reality is that in most cases a claim of this nature would not arise. The DD will be set correctly or the customer will switch.

backfoot

Nice post DD. Very powerful arguments.:T

BenNevis

backfoot wrote: »

You got it. You finally plagiarised the arguments of DD and myself and still can create an argument.

If you’d taken the trouble to read my post properly instead of just typing an offensive reply you’d seen that the argument you put forward in your post #54 is different from mine. Yours relies on SLC 27.15 words “…the best and most current information available…” and that somehow (in your mind) requires a calculation based on 12months usage.

My argument is that the very mention of a principal term wouldn’t be necessary unless Ofgem intended S27.15 to preserve the established 12monthly method as the standard method that can only be opted out of by a principal term.

Your argument is easily demolished by an energy company saying that they’d used the best info available and then applied their own methodology to calculate the new DD. That defence doesn’t touch my argument in any way. Our arguments are quite separate and different. If both arguments were the same then the same defence would demolish them both at a stroke.

Your post is as usual offensive and now it’s defamatory. You’ve already shown yourself to be abusive and a bully in earlier threads directed to jalexa and me. Even the first line of your post #19 last night attempts to have a laugh at his expense in a nasty way.

I’ve noticed when you’re loosing you resort to abuse and bullying and taking the mickey out of someone but hey you’ve got to be desperate to lower yourself to that level and show yourself up trying to intimidate folk.

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

Your post is as usual offensive and now it’s defamatory. You’ve already shown yourself to be abusive and a bully in earlier threads directed to jalexa and me. Even the first line of your post #19 last night attempts to have a laugh at his expense in a nasty way.

I’ve noticed when you’re loosing you resort to abuse and bullying and taking the mickey out of someone but hey you’ve got to be desperate to lower yourself to that level and show yourself up trying to intimidate folk.

What a load of complete rubbish. Where do you get all that from.....:rotfl:

Defamatory. What, where?

Perhaps ask Jalexa before you make wild assumptions on his behalf.

Instead of creating arguments of minutiae with either DD or myself put your argument to Ofgem and Consumer Focus and do something positive.

The contacts are : Martin Abraham at Ofgem and C Urquhart at Consumer Focus.

DirectDebacle

BenNevis wrote: »

We all know and all agree now that there’s no prohibitive wording in SLC 27 especially in SLC 27.15.

Speak for yourself.

Add to existing Standard Licence Condition 27 ‘Payment methods under Domestic Supply Contract’:
27.13 Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 apply where a Domestic Customer pays the Charges for the Supply of Electricity which are payable under its Domestic Supply Contract by way of regular direct debit payments of a fixed amount (which amount may be varied from time to time in accordance with the relevant Domestic Supply Contract).

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.

27.15 Save where a clear and express Principal Term of the relevant Domestic Supply Contract provides otherwise, 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 electricity which the licensee reasonably estimates has been or will be supplied under the relevant Domestic Supply Contract.

Does not the wording prohibit suppliers from setting a fixed DD payment amount without providing to each domestic customer an explanation in clear and intelligible language the basis upon which the fixed amount has been determined.

Does not the wording prohibit suppliers from varying a fixed DD payment amount without providing to each domestic customer an explanation in clear and intelligible language the basis upon which the fixed amount has been varied.

Does not the wording prohibit suppliers from using complicated technical terms, phrases and language that the average customer is not likely to find clear and intelligble.

If you are saying SLC does not prohibit this then what do you think the purpose of SLC 27 is?

BenNevis

Direct Debacle. I guess that you’d expected I’d reply to your posts #25 & #29 and I’ve done so only in the hope that’ll help in what you’re trying to do.

In your post #25 I agree with pretty well the whole thing but I’d make the following comments.

I’d agree that SLC 27 isn’t the main subject but we all realize it may be a vital part of the solution especially if Ofgem agrees that it’s being breached on a huge scale. It saves Ofgem having to draw up a new regulation that could take several years of lengthy consultation etc leaving in the meantime millions of customers suffering. While SLC 27 may have been over analysed on this forum if it leads to a positive result then great.

I’d agree with you about breaches of contract etc but the only trouble is that customers aren’t being overcharged and so they don’t have a claim for compensation except maybe for any financial hardship or inconvenience suffered and I’m struggling to see how this’d stop the energy companies in their tracks in any case.

The lack of notice under SLC 23. 3(b) is a very important point and I’m sure you’ll use it along with any other licence breaches to good effect.

In reply to your post #29 I see that according to the OED “prohibit” means to (1) formally forbid by law, rule etc. (2) prevent.

SLC’s 27.14 & 27.15 don’t contain any words that formally prohibit anything. What they do contain are words that require the energy companies e.g. to provide an explanation etc. (27.14) and e.g. to use the best info etc. etc. (27.15). Maybe in this matter the difference between “require” and “prohibit” isn’t important but you never know.

I think we’re in agreement that the requirements of SLC 27.14 haven’t been complied with. The energy companies will disagree but the proof against them is IMO is devastating. The absence of the actual calculation of customers new DD’s seems a clear breach of this section as it leaves customers bewildered and unable to check the calculation.

As you’ll see from my posts about SLC 27.15 I believe that this clause requires the energy companies to stick to the standard 12month method unless the customer’s contract contains a principal term and none do. It’d be very helpful if CF were to express a legal opinion on this interpretation of SLC 27.15.

I also believe it might take the energy companies years to install principal terms in all their contracts because I guess that such a term can’t be added to an existing contract only to new customer contracts in headline form. For the moment I feel Ofgem will be reluctant to do anything at all as it’s tried not to be prescriptive but has ended up tying itself up in knots when drafting SLC 27.15. Even if I’m right about SLC 27.15 I don’t believe Ofgem has the guts to stand up to all the energy companies as a group and say they’re all in breach of SLC 27.15 unless Ofgem is pushed into it by CF or its successor.

backfoot

BenNevis wrote: »

“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?”

We all know and all agree now that there’s no prohibitive wording in SLC 27 especially in SLC 27.15.

BenNevis wrote: »

The lack of notice under SLC 23. 3(b) is a very important point and I’m sure you’ll use it along with any other licence breaches to good effect.

I think we’re in agreement that the requirements of SLC 27.14 haven’t been complied with. The energy companies will disagree but the proof against them is IMO is devastating. The absence of the actual calculation of customers new DD’s seems a clear breach of this section as it leaves customers bewildered and unable to check the calculation.

As you’ll see from my posts about SLC 27.15 I believe that this clause requires the energy companies to stick to the standard 12month method unless the customer’s contract contains a principal term and none do. It’d be very helpful if CF were to express a legal opinion on this interpretation of SLC 27.15.

That only leaves 27.13 and then you will have fully contradicted your original (and bizarrely) ongoing assertion that they are not in breach.

Glad you see it the same way now :T (or do you?)