EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

Terrylw1

I think you're right their Backfoot, they are afraid of sharing it which means its of dubious accuracy. If they can't proudly be confident of it, how can they be justified in not improving it until they do?

At the end of the day, however they do it hasn't just appeared out of thin air. Someone has had to spec it out with experts/lessons learned from the previous billing systems, had to explain it to get sign off, translated into IT specs (which is often a detailed exercise to stop IT people going off course) and then fully tested it to allow the project sponsor to sign it off as closed. This may have thrown out a load of smaller non essential fixes but the basic requirement would have been fulfilled.

So, either they don't have a clue, know they have built it wrong and don't want go broadcast it until secretly fixed, have no change management inline with current standards hence its all been words in ears management or they are just so arrogant they don't believe they are to be held responsible to their customers or regulation.

Something that would be nice is If Ofgem explain how they ensure a new SLC or modification is introduced, as in how do they know the supplier has done it. It will just be an email from the supplier to confirm it I'll bet.

Ofgem should really have introduced a less woolly version because its open to different practice by all suppliers..,and that's not in the interest of customers who just need one way like in SLC31A's post 12 months forecast. A modification instructing something tighter would prevent this, as in put something on each bill so its always public.

backfoot

I have heard back from Ofgem and they are encouraging me to continue with my complaint via the Energy Ombudsman. I take that to mean that there are good grounds for success.

They have also commented that,without seeing the full detail, there should be no reason for the EO to reject claims about EDF's DD policy and lack of supporting explanations.

In particular,in all of these cases,they are keen to emphasise the importance of competent complaint handling and associated customer service. So taking my own case as an example, EDF were given several opportunities to deal with my request for simple information but at no stage did they attempt to satisfy the request. I am informed that my case has already been passed over to the enforcement team looking into the already open investigation into EDF's Complaint Handling.

As you know,they were fined considerable amounts for two separate investigations.

I have already submitted my complaint to the EO which is seeking to establish that :

EDF failed to abide by SLC27 in providing understandable explanation of a change in DD, at the time of that change.

EDF failed to respond or satisfy the subsequent reasonable requests for such data and explanation on several occasions during the complaint handling process.

EDF obstructed the process by finally claiming a totally bogus defence by claiming SLC31A overides SLC27.

That EDF should pay compensation to the maximum level allowed for breaches of SLC27 and for failure to properly deal with the valid customer complaint.

backfoot

snowcat53 wrote: »

Thank you for that - there are some useful arguments you make I might use in a reply to the EO. They did leave the door open to pursuing a complaint on grounds that edf hadnt satisfactorily answered my complaint.

All rather Alice in Wonderland crossed with Kafka.

Hi snowcat,

What is the status of your EO referral? A dual attack on EDF will hopefully carry more weight.

In any event, I have asked them to treat it as a test case so that other customers can be protected if I succeed.

My complaint is now registered with the EO and they have asked for the correspondence and for details of the desired outcome.

Strange, as the latter was laid out in the complaint to them via the EO online process.

There is no problem with me representing my relative in this matter.

Following your experience, I have to say, I am not confident in the ability of the EO to grasp or understand the issue. If that proves correct ,I shall return to OFGEM or higher begging questions about the adequacy of License Enforcement.

Terrylw1

If the EO is not fit for purpose, they are part of the ombudsman scheme so it could be raised to whatever standards dept exists to enforce the standards they have to adhere to in order to operate as the ombudsman.

I'm sure whatever happens, the response will be the usual apologetic one, it won't happen again, it was a new person...you know, the same excuses suppliers give out?

backfoot

Terrylw1 wrote: »

I'm sure whatever happens, the response will be the usual apologetic one, it won't happen again, it was a new person...you know, the same excuses suppliers give out?

I have no idea of the resources that the EO employs to look into complaints. I won't hold my breath, but Ofgem were confident that I would be be able to formulate a complaint that the EO would not be able to fend away.

I believe Ofgem saw the validity of the complaint and its importance to customers. I think they wanted it to pass through the EO as that is the normal protocol for complaints. We came across this with Eon DD's,where Ofgem were very keen for CF to capture evidence before taking action.In the end,as we know,Eon finally gave up and conceded.

Anyway,lets not forget that EDF are the real villains here. Due to a poorly specified system they have developed a non functioning,confusing system of DD management (non management).

When challenged for explanations, they do not provide them.

When further challenged about non compliance with the SLC27, they have invented a bogus defence by quoting SLC31A.

From a customer service/complaint handling perspective,at no stage,did they attempt to satisfy reasonable requests for information. They offerred only the most generic, 'teach grandmother to suck eggs' wording. It falls far short of SLC27.

EDF have been totally obstructive in relation to a simple matter at the heart of most customer's management of bills. The obstruction has been sanctioned by Senior Management, including their Legal Departement !

It appears that they have not learnt the lessons from two recent fines levied by Ofgem.

snowcat53

backfoot wrote: »

Hi snowcat,

What is the status of your EO referral? A dual attack on EDF will hopefully carry more weight.
/QUOTE]
Hello Backfoot,
Life has intevened recently and i have to confess i have not taken it back to the EO again. But I will. Your news is encouraging.

snowcat

PS Have now sent new letter to EO- have asked them to continue the complaint on the grounds of shortfall in customer service.

snowcat53

I have now had a further reply from the EO
"How EDF Energy provides a service to you, and on what terms, are 'commercial decisions'. For example, if a company decides to increase the charges for providing your energy, this is a commercial decision. As you have previously been advised we cannot look in to this type of
complaint."

This was in response to my reiterated complaint.
"I accept that if this were a complaint about a commercial decision by EDF, you would be unable to deal with it. It is not. It is about the failure of EDF to deal adequately with my complaint (regarding lack of explanation of direct debit changes as required by SLC27) and I have indeed pursued this with them for many months, and they have failed to provide me with a satisfactory response. As you accept that you can investigate this as a potential shortfall in customer service, I am requesting that you do so.

To summarise my complaint again
1. EDF have consistently failed to abide by SLC27 and provide a proper understandable explanation of a change in the requested Direct Debit amount, at the time of that change. The information supplied has been contradictory.

2. EDF failed to respond or satisfy to my subsequent reasonable requests for such data and explanation on several occasions during the complaint handling process.
I believe that EDF should pay compensation to the maximum level allowed for breaches of SLC27 and for failure to properly deal with the valid customer complaint. "

Their reply again seems to completely ignore the letter and tries to hide behind a bizarre definition that everything is a 'commercial decision'? Is this explict anywhere?

backfoot

It is interesting to note that the Complaint Handler at the EO has edited my complaint. She has removed the references to SLC27. She has also removed reference to SLC31A which is cited by EDF as their defence,for not producing an explanation of the DD change.

I have asked for both to be reinstated as being at the heart of any adjudication of the complaint. It is beyond comprehension that issues defined by SLC's cannot be adjudicated by the EO. It is also beyond comprehension that the EO deems such matters solely as commercial decisions.

I am keeping Ofgem fully in the loop regarding my complaint and have specifically asked them to provide guidance and interpretation of SLC27. If the EO won't adjudicate (which they obviously should) then it is incumbent on Ofgem to do so.

In your case,the EO seem to be passing the buck for no good reason and imho are bringing their offices into disrepute. Ofgem told me the correct route for our complaints is via the EO. The EO cannot now be arguing it is not within their jurisdiction. We are being presented with a total disconnect of the regulatory process.

Ofgem are aware of this thread and are following it. I keep asking them to intervene and hope that they will, as we seem to be going round in circles.

snowcat53

Backfoot, let me know if Ofgem would like full details of my correspondence to support this case.

backfoot

Snowcat,

Could you pm with the name of the EO Complaint Handler in your case? I am interested to see if it is same person dealing with my complaint.

In my case,they have edited my complaint to definately slant it towards the customer service aspects. I am happy with that aspect but also want the EO to determine that EDF are not providing the required information as a matter of policy. Indeed, and as a last ditch resort,they invented a bogus defence. Someone has to decide if that defence is valid or not.

Such practices,as seen in different guises,are not 'commercial decisions' but actions designed to prevent regulated information being issued to customers.

Not only is that bizarre customer service but it is defiance of the Regulation governing it.

The EO has effectively said to you that EDF are not governed by the Regulations concerned with Direct Debits and they can do what they like. It's a laughable position. :rotfl: It is likely that the Complaint Handler hasn't grasped the issue or they are putting it in the too difficult pile.

I am awaiting Ofgem's response but will again alert them to this thread so that they can see your impasse. :wall: