EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

backfoot

Snowcat,

First of all well done,you have won the case and an award to recognise EDF's failings. I don't blame you for accepting the decision. It vindicates your determination to seek from EDF an explanation for the erratic movement of your DD. That explanation wasn't forthcoming.

What is apparent is that the EO have chosen to find in your favour related to Customer Service and not on the grounds of whether the License Conditions were breached. I think they have dodged that one and would love to see the exact wording of your adjudication.

I have news of my adjudication to follow.

backfoot

My claim has now been adjudicated by the EO.

The decision is :

EDF should,

1.provide details of the Direct Debit reassessment that took place on the 6/2/12.

2.send a letter of apology

3.demonstrate that it has provided the goodwill payment of £20.

So in simple terms the case is won. Element 1 is the key issue I wanted to establish.

The report which is two pages long, is however, quite bizarre and contradictory. To some extent, it follows the theme of snowcat's decision and specifically says it has cannot decide whether the SLC is breached.

Extracting the key paragraphs will explain the anomolies.

' I should begin by explaining that it falls outside of the OS: Energy's remit to decide whether there has been a breach of an SLC and this is a matter for the regulator, Ofgem. However, I will consider whether EDf has acted reasonably.'

'EDF based the bill on accurate readings. It explains on the front of the bill that the DD is changing as Mr. x's consumption has been different to his usage.It explains that it has calculated Mr.x's monthly payment using his current balance and what it expects him to use.EDF confirmed this explanation in its email dated 28/2/12. Furthermore,in its e mail dated 12/4/12, EDF provided further information explaining it would look back at the previous consumption,the meter readings it holds and the 'typical Direct Debit curve.'It explained that when it produced the bill in february it would have expected a greater debit balance than £13.93 as this was following a winter period.

(tbc)

backfoot

(contd)

In my view EDF has provided a clear explanation as to why it has decreased the DD.Furthermore, I consider that it has acted appropriately in reassessing the DD following the receipt of an up to date meter reading. Therefore it has based it's calculation on the most current information available.

EDF's systems automatically calculate the DD amount and the advisors you complained to would not have had direct access to the calculation used. However,EDF explains that it is able to provide details of the DD reassessment and it my decision that it should provide this.

You complain that EDF used SLC31. A.1 as a bogus defence that it was not required to provide the information set out in SLC27. EDF referenced this in relation to its requirement to provide an estimated forecast to customers,as it is only required to do this once a year. Mr.x had been with EDf for less than 12 months when it amended the DD, therefore, EDF was stating it was not required to provide an estimated forecast under the SLC's.

You complain that EDF has provided poor customer service, as it's responses have been extremely tardy and obstructive.I have reviewed the email correspndence and I note that EDf has not met its aim to provide a response within 10 working days.This is a shortfall in customer service. However,I am satisfied that it has responded to your contacts in an appropriate manner.

It is my decision that EDf should demonstrate that it has provided this goodwill payment to Mr.X. It should also send a letter of apology for the shortfalls in customer service.

(end)

backfoot

Having read the adjudication several times now, it is imho a very poor piece of work.

After initially arguing myself with Ofgem that only they could properly interpret SLC27, I was redirected to the EO. Now after, six months of delay they respond that it is not within their remit.

Despite finding on the key issue that EDf should have given me the 'calculation' , there is no award for this failure. In fact, it is stated that they consider EDF responded in an appropriate manner. That is contradictory nonsense.

There is then a complete repeat of the issue regarding SLC27 vs SLC 31.A.1.

An award of £20 for poor customer service and delays is given with EDf to prove that they have already given this. EDF made two £20 payments previously. One for not setting up a gas DD for three months and secondly for taking an unauthorised DD balance and for not responding to an enquiry about that.

To say, I am confused if not bewildered is to understate the position. Yet,at the same time, I am not at all surprised as I started the EO thread because I sensed that there would be a total lack of comprehension of the issues being argued.

I welcome any feedback.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

I welcome any feedback.

Some brief musings while I prepare a more technical post on "what next".

First of all congratulations on your (and snowcat's) tenacity in forcing the issues through. ISTM that in the art of the adjudicator there is a determination to have "something for everyone" in the outcome. And your adjudicator excelled:D.

I consider that it has acted appropriately in reassessing the DD following the receipt of an up to date meter reading. therefore it has based it's calculation on the most current information available...

Hey, this is the same adjudicator who didn't want to adjudicate SLC, quoting an SLC.:D

... however,EDF explains that it is able to provide details of the DD reassessment and it my decision that it should provide this.

Let's go to town on that everybody.

For my part Edf are being very circumspect and are avoiding recalculation even though I have given them every opportunity to "foot shoot". I speculate there may be a "do not recalculate" marker on my account:). BTW avoiding "foot shooting" does not extend to (not) answering a simple email query. The email was closed unanswered. By adviser, supervisor or manager I know not. Then the failure to respond to the follow-up complaint failed to run, adviser error allegedly.

On customer service Edf do not appear to be out of the woods. Possibly an easy win on a EO comfortable issue, but I am keeping my powder dry for something bigger.

amiehall

They do seem pretty good at shooting themselves in the foot... When I was joining, a switch date appeared on my online account. Then one time I signed in near the date and it had changed to a date in August 6 weeks later than the original date. Obviously I wasn't very happy about such a delay and sent them an email asking them to explain the delay and why the date had changed. They replied promptly apologising for a failure in their online systems etc. and said they had raised a complaint on the issue on my behalf. My switch went through on the original date without issue. However, I haven't heard back from them regarding this complaint. The issue has resolved itself and I genuinely wasn't wanting to make a formal complaint but it does irk me that they haven't replied. They do seem quite good at generating issues for themselves out of thin air...

Can I also say that those ombudsman rulings are a total joke. Do they have a complaints procedure? Or is their decision a final say?

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

An explanation that says 'we use the estimated costs over the next 12 months and divide it by 12' is not a meaningful explanation at all in my book.

I would have thought that was a sound "basis". However if I understand backfoot's adjudication, Edf are (at least) required to provide details on request.

Rushing to get something down before Terrylw1 comes along later, its worth referring to brewerdave's recent post

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55337775&postcount=21

For the first time Edf are reported as referring to the industry indicator AQ (annual quantity) for gas. (EAC (Estimated Annual Consumption) is the "equivalent" for electricity).

[something I didn't appreciate at the time, BD posts Edf as describing AQ as a "forecast". I believe Edf misdescribe (or misunderstand) AQ, it is not a forecast]

Let me deal with EAC first. The Elexon definition of EAC is "... a temperature normalised estimate of consumption over a calendar year". It is important to recognise it is projecting forward. It is updated frequently, and subject only to frequency of meter readings, offers the certainty of an accurate and independently audited figure that the supplier could not "improve on" or manipulate. In my estimation, wobetide Edf if they meddle with the EAC.

AQ on the other hand is currently "unsatisfactory" as a measure of projected consumption. This is because it is a measure of previous metered consumption, is only updated once a year (in August), and relies on meter readings being a minimum of 9 months apart. If you look at the timeline, until the August 2012 update occurs (and is used by Edf) , AQ has been a measure of consumption during the extreme weather event prior to August 2011.

The issue therefore is what adjustments Edf have made to AQ to derive a realistic and reasonable measure of projected gas consumption.

In SLC27.15 terms "the licensee must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the fixed amount of the regular direct debit payment is based on the best and most current information available (or which reasonably ought to be available) to the licensee, including information as to the quantity of electricity which the licensee reasonably estimates has been or will be supplied under the relevant Domestic Supply Contract." In backfoot's adjudication the EO has (selectively) cited SLC27.15 as applicable. A hole has been dug for both the EO and Edf.

The way forward is to probe how Edf derives projected annual (gas) consumption from the AQ. Just as soon as Edf fall into the trap of informing me (as they have done brewerdave) of AQ, I'm on that case.:D

And there is a subtext that DD recalculation in the last 12 months has relied on a not fit for purpose use of AQ derived over an abnormally cold period. That could explain much of what has been reported. That said I think we should move on from the last 12 months to the next 12 months and focus relentlessly on the Edf 'projected annual consumption' for gas. The DD calculation can never be right unless the projected consumption is "accurate".

Terrylw1

Interesting point on page 1 of this proposal document regarding AQ's being on average 18 months out of date.

That's not good for Jalexa's issue regarding a spike due to unusual weather. To remove this spike, the AQ would need amending to apply values based on projected weather. I have no idea how they do this or whether they do this based on MET Office data for previous years (which would also need the previous years adjusting).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Hgu33OR0BzAJ:www.gasgovernance.co.uk/sites/default/files/ExampleSummaries.pdf+gas+annual+quantity+review+uk&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUqFMSA70IjaYNugfDWZ9uWs3vsg4vCxAZGIhBKEluzKl4Zc25bVLyFuYbz_BNQ01hQHksCfvY4-0taYvEHqhJjGHhItikiBc6HHr-4RKGG203NfZNJNyZm2nYn542XVU-Le7y&sig=AHIEtbRT-6uKA3pgAwzcrxduvcb0C1lmvA

So, are outliers "smoothed"?

The question might be if the AQ uses 12 months previous or a longer period as elec does.

Terrylw1

Some definitions pulled off the gas network sites, not the suppliers.

Annual Quantity (AQ)The maximum quantity of gas measured in therms or kW which National Grid Transco estimate a supply point will use during one year ' the AQ is based upon the previous year's consumption at the same site and takes no account of any change of ownership, tenancy or use which might have taken place.

Off http://www.powerefficiency.co.uk/glossary?index=A

One here quoting "average" weather conditions.

http://www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/cms/18.html

Perhaps its worth reviewing the industry AQ Review process?

snowcat53

ALthough the matter of SLC interpreation and enforcement is still unclear, we can look at the positives of backfoot's and my EO judgements. For one we have one powerful new tool - customers can insist on a more detailed explanation of DD calculation beyond the standard EDF response and this has to be provided in timely fashion. As jalexa says we can go to town on this.

I shall certainly be following it up asking for edf to give detail every time they alter the amount, and explan why they have assumed my next year's gas consumption will be 9% higher than this year's.