EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

jalexa

Terrylw1 wrote: »

If you don't provide your new supplier with a reading on a switch, the Data Collector has to estimate one, known Deeming...

What I find really annoying about Edf's conduct is that readings were provided during the switch process and the initial DD correctly calculated but were later changed to "previous 12 months" without any justification and without my knowledge.

It may be relevant that I can just about make the "previous 12 months" figures "fit", (but not the actual consumption as indicated by regular (valid) customer and meter reader reads).

backfoot

I have no doubt about the depth of knowledge of Terry regarding data collection,data validation and the processes used on switching and for monitoring meter reading validity. These procedures link into many other aspects.e.g.purchased units.

What I am less convinced about is the extent to which those procedures, and things like EAC and AA,are used in the creation of Direct Debit customer amounts.

In my view,the use of such data is too far downstream to sensibly link it into a payment value routines. I may be wrong but I believe such routines are far more primitive than the data collection processes.

It is a very interesting debate and one I would like to contribute to and understand. However, such a debate is definately one for the 'specialists' and I am afraid debating it here has taken my simple thread a bit off track and into heavy stuff.

The thread is aimed at exposing EDF as not abiding by the simple obligation to give an explanaion of your DD amount. This is a high level analysis of forecasted consumption over a defined time period to create a monetary monthly DD.

Once you have that data,then you as a customer, can delve into those consumption forecasts if you are so inclined.At this stage,we aren't even being given the starting data. :eek:

brewerdave

All these "statistics" - but nothing explains how EDF have (mis)calculated my DD payments!
I set my initial payments up based on 1/12 of the usage that I input into the comparison sites which was actually slightly greater than the previous years actual usage. And yet EDF have wanted to increase the DD on 3 occasions during the first 4.5 months of the deal. It cannot be anything to do with short year alignment as when I phoned recently to enquire on the annual review date,I was told that it will actually be in July,which is the 12 month anniversary date!!.

backfoot

brewerdave wrote: »

All these "statistics" - but nothing explains how EDF have (mis)calculated my DD payments!
I set my initial payments up based on 1/12 of the usage that I input into the comparison sites which was actually slightly greater than the previous years actual usage. And yet EDF have wanted to increase the DD on 3 occasions during the first 4.5 months of the deal. It cannot be anything to do with short year alignment as when I phoned recently to enquire on the annual review date,I was told that it will actually be in July,which is the 12 month anniversary date!!.

Spot on BrewerDave,

My belief is that EDF just have bugs in their IT process.

There is a design problem in that they have configured it to produce a review at each meter read. Very silly.

The figures then generated are flawed by anomolies (one or many).

The customer is left with a fait accompli because EDF don't even provide the base figures. They have an overengineered process which is underengineered with useful information.

Back to the drawing board with a hefty fine and a regulatory kick up the backside is my recommendation.:D

jalexa

brewerdave wrote: »

It cannot be anything to do with short year alignment as when I phoned recently to enquire on the annual review date,I was told that it will actually be in July,which is the 12 month anniversary date!!.

Ah, but that could be because (unlike E.ON formerly) Edf does not have a 'spring alignment' policy but a 'billing cycle alignment' policy, the alignment being the scheduled quarterly bill date prior to the anniversary date. Or so they have informed me in at least three emails. So you may have been lucky. But then I was only "unlucky" by 2 weeks so I suspect an "imagination works" section contrived explanation. But they do not appear to have billing functionality to handle 'short year alignment" where that results. Or full year billing for that matter.

Anyway didn't McKneff and Snowcat53 recently post calculations that demonstrated divide by 10 for a full year of a fixed price tariff?:rotfl: A case of metectric not electric?

jalexa

brewerdave wrote: »

I set my initial payments up based on 1/12 of the usage that I input into the comparison sites which was actually slightly greater than the previous years actual usage. And yet EDF have wanted to increase the DD on 3 occasions during the first 4.5 months of the deal.

That is interesting. Have you attempted to find out the "consumption they hold on file" (a term from an Edf email). I tried three times and got three answers, two slightly different but close to the "previous 12 months". The other the adviser couldn't (or wouldn't say). Though it is a "hypothetical calculation" (because I don't know all the parameters) I can make the "previous 12 months" figures nearly fit at the 'annual review' date from the data I do know. (without dividing by 10:rotfl:)

brewerdave

jalexa wrote: »

That is interesting. Have you attempted to find out the "consumption they hold on file" (a term from an Edf email). I tried three times and got three answers, two slightly different but close to the "previous 12 months". The other the adviser couldn't (or wouldn't say). Though it is a "hypothetical calculation" (because I don't know all the parameters) I can make the "previous 12 months" figures nearly fit at the 'annual review' date from the data I do know. (without dividing by 10:rotfl:)

Nope - once I found out that "annual review" was in July, I've been waiting for a meter reader visit to see what would happen - s*ds law - haven't been visited since November!!:rotfl:

babyj3

jalexa wrote: »

That is interesting. Have you attempted to find out the "consumption they hold on file" (a term from an Edf email). I tried three times and got three answers, two slightly different but close to the "previous 12 months". The other the adviser couldn't (or wouldn't say). Though it is a "hypothetical calculation" (because I don't know all the parameters) I can make the "previous 12 months" figures nearly fit at the 'annual review' date from the data I do know. (without dividing by 10:rotfl:)

I got a DD review which tried to put my payments up by 40% even though we are entering the Spring/Summer period where my consumption reduces a lot and my present payments are more than enough to cover my usage.EDF has tried to increase my DD 4 times in 6 months and each tme it was a nightmare trying to ring them to complain and get them to put the figure back down but this 40% increase was the biggest increase so far.
I was told that a new billing system was introduced last year and that 'a full years usage is not on the new system' and that is why the DD review 'is not as accurate as it should be'
I have had 2 annual review letters/calculations in a 6 month period and both of those support my calculations not EDF - all they have to do is divide the total figure by 12 but it seems that their computer is incapable of this yet it is able to keep sending out reviews which bear no resemblence to what the customer should actually pay - it begs the question of how many people as too busy to complain and pay the increase so that EDF have all of this excess money in their coffers:mad:.

jalexa

babyj3 wrote: »

...I have had 2 annual review letters/calculations in a 6 month period and both of those support my calculations not EDF...

It's good to hear corroboration. I also have heard the excuse "a full years usage is not on the ... system". It is an excuse. There are several statistical approaches to accurate estimates. Anyway that is Edf's problem to solve. Supply regulations require the calculation to be based on "the best and most current information available". I believe Edf to be in breach of the relevant regulation.

It would be great if you could post the numbers on your 2 calculations, what you were already paying monthly and what the Edf computer calculated was required.

Terrylw1

I agree Backfoot, they need to explain how they have built their new SAP system billing routines.

The EAC/AA data for most companies wouldn't have been used in their aged legacy systems, although some did.

I just think that with the advent of a new build, they will have attempted to use this to improve their systems but also bring what they pay closer to what they charge.

With the excessive complications of settlement data, its easily built badly.

Another thing to consider is that some if these SP systems have been bought based on builds for the Australian & India markets. That could a factor if those markets are different.