EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

jalexa

victor2 wrote: »

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.

OK, what I did with the early calculations, with the objective of measuring errror over my own projected annual consumption, was at each recalculation to calculate how many extra units the increased monthly payment (until review) would purchase and how many extra units were represented by the running account balance (both pro-rated gas/electricity by the payment split), all added to my projected consumption at 'annual review'. Then expressed as a percentage error compared with my annual projected and Edf annual projected consumptions.

The result was the error against the (inflated) Edf projection was within +/- 2% for 6 months and never less than 35% error against my more accurate projected consumption.

For 6 months there was no sign of my actual readings causing any convergence (reduction in error), so a complete waste of time providing readings.

As it turned out my actual outturn consumption at 'annual review' was even less than my projection, increasing the Edf error.

After 6 months something changed which I haven't yet explained. [aside - about the same time as the mysterious bill cancellation:think:]

Just a speculative calculation, I haven't refined it and it is not presented as "right", but it has served its purpose of demonstrating that the Edf assumption of annual consumption is flawed.

backfoot

I know the point is clear to everyone but the whole ethos of SLC27 is that you shouldn't have to guess what EDf have done.

Sorry, it's clear to everyone except EDF.:)

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Sorry, it's clear to everyone except EDF.:)

Is it clear to Ofgem/Consumer Focus?

I would say by definition it can't be otherwise surely they would be taking action. The Edf defensive bluster (in writing as a final response) is two fingers to regulation.

Had to laugh at one of the Ofgem letters to the industry I came across following up your SLC31A reference. "Dear Colleagues...." it began.

The cynic in me says that the provenance of the Edf currently held figure for "projected annual consumption" is undisclosed because otherwise they would be exposed as "astuces", even if it is really just an incompetent system specification.

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

Is it clear to Ofgem/Consumer Focus?

I would say by definition it can't be otherwise surely they would be taking action. The Edf defensive bluster (in writing as a final response) is two fingers to regulation.

Had to laugh at one of the Ofgem letters to the industry I came across following up your SLC31A reference. "Dear Colleagues...." it began.

The cynic in me says that the provenance of the Edf currently held figure for "projected annual consumption" is undisclosed because otherwise they would be exposed as "astuces", even if it is really just an incompetent system specification.

Well they should be clear to all.

Prior to a new SLC or amendment, the industry change orocess takes place where all parties are contacted with the requirements and invited to comment. They are also asked to investigate heir internal requirements/costs etc and for a view of roll out time. Then a central decision is made since some suppliers will always overquote on the timescale to buy themselves tine go do other roll outs.

The supplier also have to confirm they have done it.

So I don't think they can say they don't understand it since they may have updated systems, added new policies, appointed responsible owners, written and conducted training, etc.

For me the problem lies in trust. Who comes in and checks its actually happening? Ofgem have a poor record on Guaranteed Standards Of Service. So, I'm not surprised its all down to the customer to push this...someone needs to assess the worth of Ofgem and give then a kick.

snowcat53

Just bumping this up to ask if anyone has any news of the various complaints they were pursiung to the Ombudsman, Ofgem etc.

I am about to take this to the Ombudsman on the 8 week rule.

Meantime they have again increased my DD ! - not much but from 89 to 94, and this despite their written response and calculations 3 weeks ago stating that ' I would advise that a direct debit of £82 pcm will cover your usage over the 12 month period'

An Utter shambles.

victor2

snowcat53 wrote: »

Meantime they have again increased my DD ! - not much but from 89 to 94, and this despite their written response and calculations 3 weeks ago stating that ' I would advise that a direct debit of £82 pcm will cover your usage over the 12 month period'

An Utter shambles.

Well, you will give them readings.
They'll just blame the computer, but it is shambolic however you look at it.

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

Just bumping this up to ask if anyone has any news of the various complaints they were pursiung to the Ombudsman, Ofgem etc.

Have you had a "12 month statement" as required by regulations. I so what did it say about your projected annual consumption?

I have deferred any "nuclear" options until I have (or fail to be sent) a "12 month statement".

I have had to bump my request for Ofgem to explain the Edf entry in the Ofgem Direct Debit guidance note. If they do not respond the next step will be a complaint about Ofgem.

Regarding Edf, the projected annual consumption they hold (and use) is key to understanding (or refuting) the calculation. IME it is not routinely provided, and even when provided on insistence to a CSA, I suspect it may be "back-calculated" from the payment, so worthless as information.

Looking back again at the early recalculations, while not "random", they require much bigger projected consumptions than the possibly "back-calculated" figures provided on three occasions. Possibly annual consumption calculated over a short year? Or divide by 10? Still working on my "unified theory of Edf calcularity".

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

I have had to bump my request for Ofgem to explain the Edf entry in the Ofgem Direct Debit guidance note. If they do not respond the next step will be a complaint about Ofgem.

The Ofgem leaflet says '

'Correct as at Nov 2011. Consumers should check with their supplier for their current policies.'

Isn't the complaint about EDF and not Ofgem? If EDF have changed their policy, it is for them to explain.

backfoot

snowcat53 wrote: »

Just bumping this up to ask if anyone has any news of the various complaints they were pursiung to the Ombudsman, Ofgem etc.

I am about to take this to the Ombudsman on the 8 week rule.

Meantime they have again increased my DD ! - not much but from 89 to 94, and this despite their written response and calculations 3 weeks ago stating that ' I would advise that a direct debit of £82 pcm will cover your usage over the 12 month period'

An Utter shambles.

I have also reached deadlock with EDF and I am deciding the next action. I have asked Ofgem to intervene on my case (and on behalf of others), as EDF are now saying that they do not have to explain DD changes. They argue that SLC31A exempts them from SLC27, for consumption history of less than 12 months.

This is a ridiculous argument as they have performed a calculation,which they aren't prepared to share for some unknown reason.

The respective SLC's have totally different purposes and objectives and I consider there is an abuse of process to dismiss complaints on this basis.

I am waiting for Ofgem's response.

I would be interested to hear exactly what EDF have said to you?

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

The Ofgem leaflet says
'Correct as at Nov 2011. Consumers should check with their supplier for their current policies.'

At this stage "without prejudice" I have asked Ofgem to explain the entry. I already have a written explanation of the Edf policy, though it is not a "policy" which can be inferred from the terms and conditions or website information.

Are you saying that it's OK for Ofgem to say we were right in November and it is all my fault for not checking a prospective supplier's policy?:( Perhaps I need to double check my records to see if my first knowledge of the "short year" was before or after November 2011.