The Energy Ombudsman - Good or Bad ?

backfoot

chanz4 wrote: »

Only Ofgem can decide if a SLC is broken, hence them telling you they have no remit

http://www.ombudsman-services.org/our-processes.html

The key part is :

Our processes
We ensure our services are widely accessible.
We base our decisions on what is fair and reasonable.

When we make a decision we take into account

• both sides of the story
• regulatory rules, guidance and standards
• codes of practice, relevant law and regulations
• what is accepted as good industry practice

It would be a ridiculous assertion for the EO (part of the above) to make determinations in isolation of the Regulatory Regime.

It may be true that only the Regulator (Ofgem) could take enforcement action i.e. penalties, etc. but there has to be a framework to judge a Suppliers action in any complaint.

Looking at my case, even though they said they had no remit, it is clear that they did consider the SLC's, without actually directly stating if a particular condition had been breached.

The decision in my case, by definition, shows a prima facie case that there was a breach. i.e. they should have supplied the information requested (under SLC 27.)

The point well made by snowcat is that the ordinary customer is being pushed around between the Regulatory bodies without any of them getting to grips with the root source problems.

Terrylw1

I can't see why the ombudsman can't say "it is our opinion there has been a breach, however Ofgem need to rule this and your issue has been referred".

I don't believe the ombudsman has acted in the correct manner here. Let's not forget they also made attempts to remove your references to the relevant SLC's.

I also don't understand why the ombudsman can't get clarity on the SLC in question without prejudicing the case.

I just don't think they are acting in the customers best interests by hiding breaches that previously would have been seen by Ofgem in addressing a complaint.

Let's examine an example.

1 - you apply to switch
2 - the proposed supplier applies to take the supply
3 - the current supplier objects
4 - you are notified and contact your current supplier to find out why. They tell you it was for a debt
5 - you raise a complaint as your debt was the subject of a dispute at the time
6 - the supplier disagrees and deadlock ensues
7 - you refer to the ombudsman
8 - they ask for the suppliers statement to investigate against yours

Now, how does the ombudsman understand what is a legitimate reason for objection? They have to read SLC14.

In this case, providing there was a disputed debt in place, the supplier would not have sufficient grounds to object inline with the SLC.

By reviewing them, they either have to state the supplier acted in accordance or didn't.

If they didn't, isn't that a breach?

I think the relevant term for your cases is Jalexa's "weasel worded" one!

snowcat53

I have now seen the useful thread terrry pointed out with poet123's comments on the EO experience.

I guess it doesnt surprise me much that adjudications are made at different levels in the EO system. However I would expect there to be clear limits of responsibility and protocols so that if/when a question arises that is not straightforward the complaint is referred up. ALso all decisions should be subject to some sort of review.

This explains why the more junior staff would be unwilling to offer an opinion on SLC breachers (above their pay grade) and suggests that the complaints from backfoot and me did not get very high.

Also my experience of the initial unjustified rejections of my complaint, by junior handlers, as being related to commercial decisions, suggests the system is not working properly. Probably they are under pressure to minimise take up and referral up .

Terrylw1

As Backfoot has posted on another thread, it would be good to see consumers collating their issues collectively.

If they are submitted as a group of unhappy customers, its more likely to be taking seriously and can't be as easily brushed off with the old "we appreciate your feedback, value your submission and we will look into it, blah blah blah" statements that are a favourite of organisations.

To be part of the ombudsman scheme, all stakeholders must have confidence in the ability of the ombudsman. I think there will be more people out there like you and many who just accept it without knowing what has been missed, such as what has been discussed in the EDF thread.

Does the ombudsman send out a customer satisfaction survey after you accept their decision and they close your case?

Something else worth knowing is when exactly is your case closed? There was a thread a few weeks back where the supplier didn't comply with the ombudsman decision and the ombudsman clearly did not know. This is sloppy and it appears they trust the supplier to act...but isn't that why these cases have already gone that far?

backfoot

One of the themes coming out of this thread is that customer's who are using the EO feel that the depth of analysis is deficient.

Around two years ago , my wife became involved in a dispute over lost funds with an ISA with Nationwide. The funds were eventually found and a formal complaint was put forward which remained unresolved. Nationwide were unmovable so we used the Financial Ombudsman to seek resolution.

The process was much different and upon receipt of the documentation the FO contacted us to discuss the complaint. This helped us put across, not only the detail, but also the context, frustrations and impact of the appaling treatment.

Very quickly, it became apparent that the complaint was understood and on only the next day, a Senior Complaint Manager made contact and resolved the complaint at a level well above our original claims.

No one from the EO has made contact and I was reluctant to approach them for fear of being seen to prejudice the independance.

Looking at my ruling, it is clear that although I won, the report has completely muddled thinking,lack of proper analysis and a failure to grasp the blocking strategy that EDf employed in mine and other cases.

Even if the EO were 'incorrectly'reluctant to determine if the SLC had been breached, they were also referred to the Ofgem leaflet on DD's which gives clear guidance of what a customer can expect. At no stage is this referred to in the report as the benchmark standard of service. If I had chance to discuss it with the Adjudicator I am sure this and other issues could have been better put across.

It should be an essential part of the process that the Adjudicator makes contact and discusses the complaint with the complaining party.

Now we know that complaints are initially handled at 'junior' levels, it is probably understandable that such contact is avaoided. Unfortunately the resulting poor standard is an inevitable consequence.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

One of the themes coming out of this thread is that customer's who are using the EO feel that the depth of analysis is deficient.

Indeed.

Not sure whether this content should be on this thread or the Edf DD thread but going with this one as its newer.

Several experienced posters have posted that Edf are projecting annual consumption in excess of the previous 12 months actual consumption. Different "divide by" numbers have been mentioned and one poster has reported only 60% of the current balance being allowed for in the calculation. It is not inconceivable that going forward we will experience questionable recalculation, request and receive a full (and arithmetically correct) explanation of the calculation based on an unsubstantiated (and questionable) projected annual consumption.

I have always been of the view that the projected annual consumption used was the principal reason for the questionable calculation. The only advance for 2nd year customers is that the figure (cost) used is now disclosed.

A dispute on the reasonableness of consumption assumptions could easily reach the Energy Ombudsman. Given the outcomes you and others have reported I have serious reservations that a typical adjudicator could comprehend the derivation of the projected consumption given their propensity to ignore reasoned customer argument in favour of supplier statement. We need to examine closely the escalation mechanism.

backfoot

As it happens,I have just come off the phone to my adjudicator. a calm ,well balanced and obviously intelligent person.

I couldn't resist trying to find out what the thinking was behind the decision and the derisory £20 award.

What I found was that the adjudicator will not make the type of in depth enquiries which are needed to decide upon 'matters of principle' or 'matters of interpretation'.

For example, the adjudicator felt that a generic description of EDF's process is sufficient to satisfy 27.14 and the Ofgem leaflet. I don't because such a description doesn't explain the values.No one at the EO asked Ofgem what they meant by 27.14. Other Suppliers lay this calculation out.

So how can an Investigator judge such an important issue?

They found in my favour because EDF had said they had the 'calculation'. Well of course, it must be there to do it. The principle at stake was should it be revealed as a matter of course.

Then the EO claim the it's not in our remit argument and you enter the Catch 22 circular argument re Ofgem/EO. :wall:

Anyway, in polite but frustrated fashion, I have asked for the Complaint to be escalated to the Ombudsman. Yes, the Investigator isn't an Ombudsman. I can see it going round and round.

The referal to the/an actual Ombudsman takes another 8 weeks !

So picking up jalexa's points about the escalation process. I think the individuals may be perfectly competent but there are time problems for good analysis. There are also overlaps of buck passing when the going gets technical.

I don't have any easy answers because frankly I am still very disappointed with the process.

Even though I won:rotfl:

Terrylw1

Backfoot, an interesting thread here about the ombudsman's process that consumers may need to be wary of.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4195843

backfoot

My complaint before the EO was upheld in principle and a £20 award was made. I have appealed that adjudication and I am informed that it will now be heard by an actual Ombudsman.The first adjudication apparently made not by an Ombudsman. Mmmm.

Some nine weeks ago, I received an acknowledgment from the EO, that my appeal might take up to eight weeks to determine.

I called yesterday asking about progress. On two separate occasions,I was promised a call back, which as I write has still not been received.

On the second call, although keeping my composure, I was made to feel like I was expecting miracles, even in trying to find out where the case was and how much longer it would take.

I asked to speak to the relevant Administrator as apparently one of the six 'real Ombudsman' aren't allowed to speak to you. :eek:

After exhausting EDF's complaint process, then taking it to the EO it is still outstanding over half a year later. EDF should have resolved it as part of their billing procedures at the outset.

So far the EO process has been overwhelmingly disappointing (and I won), which is a shame because for so long I and others have given the 'correct' advice that unresolved complaints should follow this route.

On the two occasions, I called you are informed that you may receive a quality survey call. That hasn't happened either.

Painful.

snowcat53

It just goes on doesn't it? . Perhaps it's time those of us who have experienced this wrote to the Sec State/ Energy Minister letting him/her know just how hopeless this body is.