EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

jalexa

StevieJ wrote: »

Who do you complain to about Ofgem?

Before that stage there is this.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/About%20us/Documents1/14751_complaint.pdf

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

When asked, Edf explained their behaviour was a result of "billing cycle alignment" but there is (was) no such qualification in the Ofgem table.

But here is the latest hoot. Having made their 'annual review' (a short year for the reason above) they are unable to give a projection of annual consumption "because we do not hold 12 months of readings":rotfl:

This did not prevent an adviser "calculating" the missing summer quarter using pro-rata average consumption to date:(, which is about three times summer consumption. (Why did the adviser not have access to whatever figure is held on file? I have previously been informed there is a figure held. Unless that was also "calculated"):rotfl:

I guess I have "fitness for purpose" issues for CF.

What is EDf's billing cycle? T&C's refer to one bill per year, I think. Mine seems to be quarterly,others appear related to meter reading input.

Hoot indeed. :eek:

The second part is along the same lie they have spun me about 'less than 12 months'....:rotfl:. If they can't forecast,how have they arrived at the DD value?

The difference for me is that they say they are exempt from revealing that forecast under SLC27.

In your case,and probably mine, if I could undertand it, appears to be a flawed calculation, which they now don't want us to see.

They are tying themselves in knots with the process and then failing to deal with the valid questions and resulting complaints.A vicious cycle.

I don't think Eon copyrighted the Twitter table, perhaps there is a business opportunity.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

What is EDf's billing cycle? T&C's refer to one bill per year,...

I quote from correspondence "EDF Energy use a quarterly billing/reading pattern and the review must [my emphasis] coincide with a billing period, this means that your first review will be between 9 and 12 months and 12 months thereafter. The actual date is determined by the postcode and spread equally across the available billing days each quarter.

So for all those so captured, 'short year' aligned, and 'spring aligned' for some.

In further clarification and correspondence they do indeed tie themselves in increasingly tighter knots.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

I quote from correspondence "EDF Energy use a quarterly billing/reading pattern and the review must [my emphasis] coincide with a billing period, this means that your first review will be between 9 and 12 months and 12 months thereafter. The actual date is determined by the postcode and spread equally across the available billing days each quarter.

So for all those so captured, 'short year' aligned, and 'spring aligned' for some.

In further clarification and correspondence they do indeed tie themselves in increasingly tighter knots.

During my 'discussions' , the expert was interested in what information was revealed in T and C's or elsewhere to customers up front about such procedures. e.g. billing frequency, DD review frequency.

The issue being that that individual supplier commercial activities are a matter for themselves but that such activities should be fully open and above board.

DirectDebacle has been strong on this point on similar issues.

So if EDF,imho,have a ludicrously complicated process,that is a matter for them but they are required upfront and thereafter to provide the customer with a full explanation of that process, especially when a complaint about that process is involved.

Mention was made of Standards of Conduct for Suppliers which will be an ouput from the Retail Market Review. I am not up to date on that part of the consultation as yet.

In your case, the explanations about the process are clearly deficient and they are not resolving your complaint satisfactorily.

The remedy is more difficult to define. In my case, I am looking for a precedent that EDf must supply the information requested. Thereafter, if they want to compensate me for the time they have wasted for me in resolving a valid enquiry, all well and good.

If Ofgem happen to notice, SLC breaches or complaint handling breaches, then that is an added bonus. After all that is their job not mine.

StevieJ

EDF haven't even entered my opening gas meter reading from last August, are they still having problems with that system? I may give them the quarterly telephone call asking why they haven't done it yet

backfoot

backfoot wrote: »

I have held further discussions with Ofgem regarding EDF's claim that the SLC27 does not apply to customers with less than one year's consumption.

There is no such exemption.

EDF are due to respond to me by tomorrow on this and also on the manner in which they have dealt with my complaint.

There is already an open Ofgem investigation into complaint handling processes by EDF. Recent history shows that Ofgem are severe on this aspect much more so than any individual complaint.

EDF having failed to supply relevant requested information,at various stages over a two month period, have exposed themselves to a matter for which they are already under investigation. In responding in a totally disingenous manner with a false claim about License Conditions can only be seen as a serious breach.

I will keep readers informed of EDF's response when it is received.

EDF have now responded saying that they are not required to produce the information requested. They claim that this is because of SLC31A . That Licence Condition relates to the provision of information for Annual Statements.

Annual statements are not required until a customer has been with a supplier for 12 months.

The linkage of these two totally separate SLC's which have totally different purposes is beyond belief.

This is their 'deadlock' position.:eek:

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Annual statements are not required until a customer has been with a supplier for 12 months.

The linkage of these two totally separate SLC's which have totally different purposes is beyond belief.

When I suggested earlier that Edf has an "imagination works" section for composing these whoppers I was only half joking.

Our "12 month" issues are similar but my case may have a narrower focus. I expected more of my short first year 'not quite annual review'. I synchronised the "deadlock or default" of the concern with the review but I am somewhat underwhelmed. The "review" is identical to all the other "Direct Debit Reviews" except that a reading was prompted and I have additionally received a paper copy. Nothing on annual consumption. I understand the reason for that and it is allowed by SLC31A. What I did not expect was in answer to my query "when can I expect an annual statement?" to be informed in writing "Spring 2013" [21 months after my supply start date:exclamati:D:eek::rotfl::(:doh:] (sorry not sure which smiley to use).

Fine, I will provoke the issue by submitting a meter reading after 12 months. Maybe the computer knows better.

I have come to the conclusion that there is little difference between the forum reported actions of Scottish Power staff in trying to induce switchees to return when it is too late to return penalty free. Staff (including "managers") are "acting a role" they think they are required to act and perhaps are measured on. The "we do not have 12 months of readings" excuse to absurd estimates is too frequently heard not to be trained-in or scripted, necessary to make absurd explanations seem convincing. For most of the time they get way with it and the two fails with us are lost in the noise. Unless we can make more noise.

I am undecided whether to sound off now or defer until the 12 month mark.:think:. I quite like dry powder.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

When I suggested earlier that Edf has an "imagination works" section for composing these whoppers I was only half joking.

The "we do not have 12 months of readings" excuse to absurd estimates is too frequently heard not to be trained-in or scripted, necessary to make absurd explanations seem convincing. For most of the time they get way with it and the two fails with us are lost in the noise. Unless we can make more noise.

I would imagine all sorts of excuses have been offerred including a change back on request.

What they haven't faced before will be complaints about the process and whether it abides by the SLC. Now cornered, they have asked the Legals to come up with a defence to the unjustifiable.

It is such a weak and pathetic attempt. I am asking that a stop should be made on what is a clear abuse of process. Trying to fob off a perfectly valid request with spurious legal speak is totally unaceptable. It's one thing from poorly trained CS staff but from the Legal Department smacks of something much more sinister.

I am making a noise.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

What they haven't faced before will be complaints about the process and whether it abides by the SLC. Now cornered, they have asked the Legals to come up with a defence to the unjustifiable.

This post is about SLC27.15 compliance (not 31A). I think SLC27.15 is fairly clear except for the use of 2 Ofgem "reasonably's" which I think is all the Edf Legals have to stake their professional integrity and competence on.

We've joked about "random" Direct Debit recalculation although I always expected there would be a deterministic explanation. Increasingly I have managed to fit the "random" to a couple of speculative calculations. I now believe I have a probable explanation for the Edf "not yet got 12 months of readings" annual projection.

At the 'short-year annual review' I believe they are taking the daily average for the 'review' reading for the year to date and...

Edited as I didn't explain properly first time:

...adding that daily average to date for the balance of the remaining 12 months to the review reading, probably adjusted for the account balance at review, (except I had managed the 'annual review' balance to be virtually zero).

[as an aside, at "Direct Debit Reviews" prior to the 'annual review' I think a more complicated mechanism applied based more on the initial projected consumption than the read at the "review"]

This practice (and the numbers fit even if the "probable explanation" is wrong), by discounting low summer daily usage would have resulted (for gas) in a 15% excess cost with no further scheduled checks until a possible interim review in 6 months time. A nice little earner.

This all follows from the absurd 'short first year' treatment for which E.ON paid a high price. Edf Energy just doesn't get it and on the ability to (reasonably) calculate seasonal consumption Edf Energy is no E.ON.

victor2

jalexa wrote: »

We've joked about "random" Direct Debit recalculation although I always expected there would be a deterministic explanation. Increasingly I have managed to fit the "random" to a couple of speculative calculations. I now think I have a highly probable explanation for the Edf "not yet got 12 months of readings" annual projection.

You wouldn't like to share that theory would you? I'd be interested to try it on the various recalcs they've done to my DD amount. I haven't been with them a year yet and have stopped giving readings unless a meter reader turns up, as it stops the recalc happening and I know I'm paying enough.