EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

Terrylw1

I don't think the split is an issue in the billing system.

If the supplier operates an older legacy system where accounts must remain seperate or in different billing systems, it would be as they would not be able yo balance them together.

EDF are using a new world SAP system. The whole point of these is flexibility & adaptability. So, the ability to handle dual fuel is very important.

So, whilst the account probably records desperately in terms of data, you are managed as a customer, not a fuel hence the overpayment of one balances the account.

In some older legacy systems, they would combine 2 seperate accounts by tieing them to a master account number which showed the fuels together. Whilst data hits the individual account it also forces an update to the master, so its balanced. Parent child code.

victor2

Terrylw1 wrote: »

In some older legacy systems, they would combine 2 seperate accounts by tieing them to a master account number which showed the fuels together. Whilst data hits the individual account it also forces an update to the master, so its balanced. Parent child code.

Which is fair enough. It just appears that they haven't quite got the customer facing end together, when they state an increase in payments is largely to cover a gas "debt" when the account as a whole, and as presented, is in credit. A reduction in payments to compensate for the excessive electric "credit", which there must presumably be, should cancel the increase.

brewerdave

Re separate accounts - my initial letters last year definitely gave a breakdown of the total DD in ££s for gas and elec. ALTHO' the online account just shows the total account balance and DD.
Terrylw1 - don't know whether your sentence was tongue in cheek or not - but its quite funny in view of EDF's "problems!
"So, whilst the account probably records desperately in terms of data, you are managed as a customer, not a fuel hence the overpayment of one balances the account. "

Terrylw1

brewerdave wrote: »

Re separate accounts - my initial letters last year definitely gave a breakdown of the total DD in ££s for gas and elec. ALTHO' the online account just shows the total account balance and DD.
Terrylw1 - don't know whether your sentence was tongue in cheek or not - but its quite funny in view of EDF's "problems!
"So, whilst the account probably records desperately in terms of data, you are managed as a customer, not a fuel hence the overpayment of one balances the account. "

Argh, its this text correction software!

However, I think I'll leave it as its more accurate than the "separately" that I meant to put...:rotfl:

snowcat53

Drumroll please - I have a letter and decision from the Energy Ombudsman on my complaint.

Jumping to the decision/outcome, this is that
EDF should
1)apologise for the delays and shortfall in customer service
and
2) pay £75 as a goodwill gesture to reflect the above.

The letter details what the EO judges as significant failings in customer service, plus misleading and confusing advice.

However on the issue of SLC27.14 the decision is rather disappointing.
They have based this on a bill dated Feb 2012 (which has a much fuller explanation than earlier).
"I am satisfied that EDF has presented the appropriate information on its bills in accordance with SLC 27.14. However I accept that EDF should be able to provide a more detailed explanation when a customer requests this. In your case there was a delay in providing this information to you. "

I have to decide whether to accept the decision or go to next stage, which requires either showing a significant error on facts which makes amaterial difference, or produce significant new evidence which may make a material difference.

I am inclined to accept and draw a line.
We do appear to have forced EDF to improve the information presented to justify DD increases, although some way still to go (why change DD every time they get a reading? why have they inflated my next year's estimated gas usage?).

Terrylw1

snowcat53 wrote: »

Yes I have - in February, but I regard this as irrelevant to my complaint which is that they NEVER give an explanation or calculation when notifying you about a DD change. Irrelevant except inasmuch as it was another example of this failure. It gives a chart showing average daily gas and elec usage (for 'this period last year', 'at your last bill' and 'this bill', but with no average for 12 (or 14m)) and does not attempt to explain how this gives the DD amounts

They did give a calculation in the latest response re my complaint but bizarrely this is based on the cost for the last 14 months divided by 14, not on the new tariff prices!

Bumping this response to Jalexa asking if you had your annual review.

This is relevant to the ombudsman decision and your complaint.

Terrylw1

I'm sure a combination of the ombudsman response to you and the bumped post above will see Backfoot headbutting a wall repeatedly!

27.15 obliges the supplier to use all means at it disposal to ensure your DD is based on valid data. Once they do this, 27.14 would mean they have to make it clear how this is calculated in terms a customer can understand. It very clearly states "any variation" and that is key here.

The ombudsman, as you state, has cleared them of a breach of 27.14 by using your annual statement. However, the annual statement is to conform to 31, not 27.14!

By producing the annual statement the supplier complies with 31 as it is intended but also complies with 27.14 & 27.15, but only at that point.

What if your consumption pattern changes after 12 months? The supplier should use this data to comply with 27.15 and inform you of how this had been calculated to comply with 27.14.

This same argument applies to anything prior to the annual statement.

It appears to me that the ombudsman feels it is appropriate to allow a supplier to breach 27.14 for the first 12 months. If that were the intention of 27.14, it wouldn't be there.

The ombudsman clearly doesn't understand the SLC's.

The ombudsman should have considered everything prior to the annual statement if your issue with the DD calculation existed prior to that. Otherwise its like saying "well it might have been causing you issues for years but they have fixed it now".

snowcat53

They have looked at the correspondence before the annual review as well in fact. The nub of the EO ruling on SLC 27.14 seems to be this.

When in December edf notified a change in DD (with no numerical estimates or calculation at all), and eventually 'the advisor provided a general explanation as to how edf uses an estimated usage over the next 12 months to calculate a monthly payment amount', the EO says " I am satisfied that the response was reasonable however I appreciate you wished to have a more detailed explanation".

So they are saying this general explanation does give 'the basis' of how the DD is calculated as required in the SLC, and detail/calculation is only required to be given on request.

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

So they are saying this general explanation does give 'the basis' of how the DD is calculated as required in the SLC, and detail/calculation is only required to be given on request.

On close interpretation of regulations I do not believe the Energy Ombudsman scheme is "comfortable" doing Ofgem's consumer affairs directorate's job for them. Nor do I believe "adjudication" grade staff would likely be competent to so do. Anyway it's implicit in an ombudsman scheme that the situation adjudicated is the situation at the "deadlock" conclusion of the customer issue, not the situation at the beginning or part way through a complaint.

So the process outcome you quote is IMO a perfectly reasonable customer (or consumer) outcome.

It's is a matter of fact that the wording of SLC27.14 uses the operative word "basis" which does not strike me as being a particularly strong requirement. SLC27.15 I believe is more relevant to the accuracy and/or reasonableness of the calculation.

On the "calculation numbers" I may post more later.

snowcat53

I have accepted the offer.

However I don't believe this interpretation of SLC 27.14 can have been the intention of those drafting it. An explanation that says 'we use the estimated costs ove rthe next 12 months and divide it by 12' is not a meaningful explanation at all in my book.

27.15 sounds harder to challenge on clear grounds