EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

victor2

jalexa wrote: »

I'm sure that is how it is and seems to you, but my particualar beef is that it is completely insensitive to regular meter readings. I have submitted regular monthly reads and even though the reads clearly show a projected seasonally adjusted consumption over 30% lower than the Edf assumption figure I extracted from them, the recalculation figures indicate that the "assumption" has hardly been varied.

They really are going to have a very difficult explanation come the April review. Incidently given that the Ofgem guide states Edf do "anniversary" zero-balance (not spring) I have emailed asking for an explanation why I have an April annual review (for a July start). Doing my little bit for chaos.:D

Add to that when my meters were read, so they had 7 months actual usage, their "system" calculated my DD should be £135 and when I phoned, one of their customer service reps calculated it at £72, presumably using the same system, although she could have just scribbled it on a fag packet for all I know.

victor2

backfoot wrote: »

We started DD's with an expectation of an aproximate spreading an annual estimate of cost into 1/12ths.Take into account price increases but that's about it.

Exactly.
The suppliers, certainly EDF, seem to have lost sight of that basic principle.
If you use more, you end up in debt. If you save energy, you end up in credit and ultimately pay less.

backfoot

victor2 wrote: »

Exactly.
The suppliers, certainly EDF, seem to have lost sight of that basic principle.
If you use more, you end up in debt. If you save energy, you end up in credit and ultimately pay less.

If the Supplier's did have reliable functionality,(which EDF don't) it may be useful to provide an advisory running forecast to the anniversary date. In that way, a customer could take their own view of whether they want to intervene on their account management. Those providing regular readings getting information rather than compulsion.

The fact is, because they are forecasts, specifying all the many variables is impossible and largely pointless in the context of any marginal year end variation.

I would much rather see a Supplier highlight 'accounts with a cause for concern' and suggest to a customer that the DD is changed. This advisory approach would get us back to to DD's being a payment method rather than a battle ground.If a customer chooses to ignore the advice, then the year end balance is of course their responsibilty.

In extreme cases, the Supplier would have to right to say the DD amount is totally insufficient because it breaches the advisory parameter.

(Brainstorming mode, so happy to debate and modify.)

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

If a customer chooses to ignore the advice, then the year end balance is of course their responsibilty.

I've cut all the stuff I agree with.

Actually that's just about what the Edf online info states. At "annual review" debit balances in excess of £150 will be collected, less than £150 will be collected over 12 months. I think that means that interim review debit balances of less than £150 should definately be carried forward. Possibly it means that interim debit balances in excess of £150 should go forward to be collected. I think that is what you are suggesting.

But the reality is consumers are getting 10 days notice of a "sudden excessive hike" and the industry regulator and consumer champions are missing in inaction.

backfoot

Yes I think the £150 parameter is workable but should/could be related to the overall annual bill. It's actually a good retention strategy to allow a c/f balance of reasonable proportions.i.e.good customer service.

The constant and unnecessary intervention of EDF and Eon for different reasons defeats the objective of spreading over 12 months and having a fixed or relatively fixed amount. That is what the License Condition talked about.IMHO, too much emphasis has been placed on the 'most up to date information' and Suppliers have taken it too literally. (especially EDF who also can't add up...:rotfl:)

I'm glad you agree with my brainstorm. I wasn't expecting that.

I thought because you are very on the ball, then I thought you may not like 'advisory'.

Good,:cool: at least all the caffuffle with eon hasn't dulled my brain....yet.....:rotfl:

Apologies for excessive :eek: ing. It's late.

victor2

backfoot wrote: »

If the Supplier's did have reliable functionality,(which EDF don't) it may be useful to provide an advisory running forecast to the anniversary date. In that way, a customer could take their own view of whether they want to intervene on their account management. Those providing regular readings getting information rather than compulsion.

The fact is, because they are forecasts, specifying all the many variables is impossible and largely pointless in the context of any marginal year end variation.

I would much rather see a Supplier highlight 'accounts with a cause for concern' and suggest to a customer that the DD is changed. This advisory approach would get us back to to DD's being a payment method rather than a battle ground.If a customer chooses to ignore the advice, then the year end balance is of course their responsibilty.

In extreme cases, the Supplier would have to right to say the DD amount is totally insufficient because it breaches the advisory parameter.

(Brainstorming mode, so happy to debate and modify.)

Gets my agreement too!
Of course weather will have a large effect on utility usage and as we all know, the weather is largely unpredictable. However, even the current cold snap we have just had, should largely average out over the year when the year as a whole is compared to 2011, even though the previous "cold" winter was mostly at the end of 2010.
It isn't difficult for a computer to look at whatever history is available in terms of gas and electricity usage and predict the coming year if the same trend is followed.
A DD plan where the customer is required to provide monthly readings and the DD will remain unchanged unless usage falls outside a certain parameter would make sense to me.
More meaningful interaction with the customer is required, even if it's just an acknowledgement of your current account balance and confirmation that your DD isn't going to change. Not a note that your DD is increasing by 35% but "you need to do nothing" as we'll just help ourselves. EDF!

backfoot

For amusement here is EDF's reply to the complaint about the changed DD.

'Thank you for your email dated February 2012.

We calculate your monthly payments using your current balance and what we expect you to use; we’ll then divide this into equal payments. Based on your readings, if you’re using more energy than we first forecasted, your Payments will need to go up and if you’re using less, they’ll go down. We review your payments regularly to ensure you’re paying the right amount for the energy you use.

I am currently in the process of locating the actual calculation that is used for the direct debit reviews; however this process is usually automated. As soon as I have received this calculation I will contact you again, however I cannot advise on a timescale for this.'

:rotfl:

Further evidence of failure to operate by SLC27.14 even at the second attempt.

A further failure to abide by their complaints handling process governed by

The Gas and Electricity (Consumer Complaints Handling Standards) Regulations 2008.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

For amusement ...

Ha ha ha. Well I have to laugh at yours because I don't have one of my own to laugh at. I sent an email on a related subject more than 10 working days ago. No response so I followed up. Apparently the file notes say that the issue was closed without reply because I had subsequently contacted them. True, but not on that issue. For an email handler to be empowered to ignore an issue touching on regulation is quite something. Conspiracy or incompetence? Well it's a Complaint now. And the question still requires answering, so a double fail.

Regarding the DD calculation, my current informed opinion is that the (missing) "calculation" is entirely accurate. It is the usage assumption which is (1) wrong and (2) little or not modified by all the "most recent" meter readings (contrary to regulations). A nice 25% earner.

Alternatively they work out the usage assumption by back-calculating the (wrong) monthly payment.:D

All that said I asked for my full balance back 2 months early and that was efficiently credited without protest.

victor2

EDF contacted me on Feb 10 after I lodged a complaint with Consumer Direct. The chap I spoke to agreed to send me details of how the DD was calculated and gave me his phone number. Called him yesterday as nothing had arrived. He claimed he had sent me something and would post another copy that afternoon.
Can hardly wait.....

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

Regarding the DD calculation, my current informed opinion is that the (missing) "calculation" is entirely accurate.


All that said I asked for my full balance back 2 months early and that was efficiently credited without protest.

Not sure I follow how something that is missing can be accurate. In simple terms, I am happy to accept any reasonable attempt to calculate estimated consumption up to the agreed review period. (12 months from start ).

EDf haven't attempted to do this, or tell me how many months to go or even when my review is. In fact zilch. They just give me a number and the most generic of explanations.

That can't be right can it? Are the amounts correct or created by random number generator? Remember, not all customers, like my relative, approach meter reading recording as diligently as us geeks.

The fact they change it as soon as you contact them indicates that they don't know what they are doing.(like referees):)