EDF Fail Ofgem Direct Debit Rules

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Not sure I follow how something that is missing can be accurate.

That wasn't a defence of the missing calculation or their "dysfunctional" process and I probably over egged the "entirely accurate". And you are right it is not reasonable to expect every customer to be able and willing to do the calculation.

I have asked for my "annual consumption" assumption on three occasions. Twice I have been given slightly different numbers but close to what could have been my previous annual consumption, including a very severe winter, provided by my previous supplier. On the most recent occasion the adviser said the usage assumption could not be provided (didn't know how to I think:(), but somehow was able to do a manual calculation:D that confirmed my assertion that the "system calculation" was wrong.

Anyway, plugging the previous consumption figures, current payment and current balance into my spreadsheet indicates the Edf monthly payment calculation is correct for the (wrong) consumption assumption.

I no longer consider the Edf calculation "random". It is the management of the projected consumption, not taking account of the "most recent" meter reading information, which is "dysfunctional". I assume.

victor2

Well, got my "copy" of the mail supposedly sent earlier. It says....

...our aim is to ensure that Direct Debit payments are set at an adequate level to cover the energy being used, with the account balance as close to zero as possible at the annual review stage...

Absolutely nothing about how they calculate the amount, which is what I specifically asked, particularly in light of their system recalculating my DD to be £135 and their telephone agent calculating it to be £72 on the same day.
Honestly don't know if it's worth chasing the letter author (whose direct 0845 number I have) for the explanation I asked for, as it will cost me money and probably just frustrate me further.

SnowMan

victor2 wrote: »

Well, got my "copy" of the mail supposedly sent earlier. It says....


Absolutely nothing about how they calculate the amount, which is what I specifically asked, particularly in light of their system recalculating my DD to be £135 and their telephone agent calculating it to be £72 on the same day.
Honestly don't know if it's worth chasing the letter author (whose direct 0845 number I have) for the explanation I asked for, as it will cost me money and probably just frustrate me further.

That's truly appalling.

I would update Consumer Focus on your experience if I were you.

jalexa

Just received my annual review reading request email. Took 3 days to arrive, some sort of French snail email perhaps. Now I have documentary proof that I have been "short first-yeared" even though Ofgem published guidance says "anniversary". Talk your way out of that. Actually they have already been asked and the Director's office has less than 10 days left, otherwise the "merde" flies.

The second page has a brief, nay very brief, section entitled "Your Previous Meter Reading History" (all Capitalised, strange). Only two readings shown, a recent gas customer read and the opening electric read:(, though I have provided regular customer reads (about ten, and at least one meter reader read and one estimate), and an electric read at the same time as the most recent gas read. !!!!!!.

Watch this space.

victor2

I haven't received one yet, and I started with them last May, so will be interesting to see what happens. They have done so many DD reviews though - and I don't know what the difference between that and an "annual" review is. Last DD review was November, so I would guess they'll request a reading in April (6 months later). I haven't given any readings since November as I know my payments cover my usage.

cbrpaul

i am glad its not just myself who finds EDF`s DD system a nightmare !!

I really have lost track of it all , and sorry to say , i am going on complete faith of EDF and their calcs !!

I may pay for my error in more ways than 1 !!!

jalexa

victor2 wrote: »

Last DD review was November, so I would guess they'll request a reading in April (6 months later).

Possibly. I knew my 'annual review' date (and more recently the billing window opening and closing dates) only because I knew to ask. Throughout my custom I never received any formal communication of the annual review date, though it has been set in the system for some time.

Like you I do not know the difference between the annual review and post-billing recalculations except the email specifically says "As long as we receive a valid reading(s) ... we will use this with your readings for the last year and other information about your property to forecast your next year’s usage. We’ll then work out how much this will cost and divide it into equal monthly payments"

Surely they can get a 12 month calculation and forecast right on a fixed price tariff?:D

victor2

cbrpaul wrote: »

I really have lost track of it all , and sorry to say , i am going on complete faith of EDF and their calcs !!

Judging by people's experiences quoted on here, don't!
The good news is their direct debit recalcs always seem to increase the amount you are paying, so you're unlikely to end up in debt.
If you have a year's worth of meter readings, you can work out your annual usage and figure out what your monthly payments ought to be (assuming nothing much has changed in your usage) by dividing the annual cost at current rates on your tariff, by 12.
EDF appear to be completely incapable of doing that.

cbrpaul

victor2 wrote: »

Judging by people's experiences quoted on here, don't!
The good news is their direct debit recalcs always seem to increase the amount you are paying, so you're unlikely to end up in debt.
If you have a year's worth of meter readings, you can work out your annual usage and figure out what your monthly payments ought to be (assuming nothing much has changed in your usage) by dividing the annual cost at current rates on your tariff, by 12.
EDF appear to be completely incapable of doing that.

thx , yes ,,, i am always in credit , but 6 months ago had a new boiler fitted , and saw my gas usage drop like a stone !!!

Due to this sudden drop in usage , they have just halved my DD !!!

I always give a meter reading , so hopefully no surprises on way out estimated readings,,

Now the winter is near enough over I will keep an eye on my usage , and make sure my new DD covers the cost, which i think it will for the summer , but may have to adjsut for the winter and the fact my fixed s@ver2 comes to end !!

backfoot

victor2 wrote: »

The good news is their direct debit recalcs always seem to increase the amount you are paying, so you're unlikely to end up in debt.

I must be the exception to the rule.

Our history is that no DD was set up for gas for three months.

Finally got them to accept this omission and agreed the missing three months would be recovered over the remaining nine months to the anniversary date. Fixed rate three year contract so really would not expect any further intervention.

After six months,EDF decide to reduce the DD without supporting explanation. Both gas and electricity affected. My elderly relative was happy with the contract and the original DD amount. He doesn't want it changed and chopping and changing it doesn't make any sense.

We are now nearly seven weeks into their complaint process and they still can't explain the change. Despite reminders, they haven't responded for nearly a month. A further reminder sent today. Not used the Energy Ombudsman before so it will be interesting. Copies, of course to Ofgem, who are already aware of this parallel SLC27 failing along with the Eon issue.

As we know,we have recognition of these problems now by Ofgem and although the wheels turn slowly, they are turning.:)

My view is that Eon had a deliberately non compliant system and EDF just don't have a clue or a system which is anywhere near close to what should happen.

I suspect a set of inexperienced Consultants were let loose on some poorly defined business requirements. The fact that their bills don't make any sense in the normal accepted practice support this. See separate thread.