The Energy Ombudsman - Good or Bad ?

backfoot

Further update. The initial investigator rang to say that my review was still not completed and the EO was on holiday.:(

We got into a discussion about the complaint and the interesting part, was where she said it was not within their remit to consider if a Supplier had breached a SLC as that was a matter for Ofgem.

I know enforcement action can only be taken by Ofgem but it must be that the EO can make a judgment against the SLC or any other laws.

I have heard them say this to other customers and I think they are confusing the two things and not abiding by their own Terms Of Reference. It means that they bat away difficult cases and in my case have been reluctant to seek further advice from Ofgem on matters of interpretation.i.e. they don't want to set tricky precedents.

Their T of R include the following:


6.6

In handling complaints, carrying out investigations and reaching any Final Decision (as provided for hereunder) it shall be the duty of the Ombudsman:

((e) to have regard to any applicable rule of law, the terms of any relevant contract,any relevant judicial authority or regulatory provision, any relevant codes of conduct or practice, any guidance of a general nature given by the Board and what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, best practice in the handling of complaints;

snowcat53

Nice one backfoot. Keep on pressing!

Terrylw1

If you get into a discussion over the SLC's, why not trap them using my example on the 1st page and the TOR.

If your complaint was against a supplier who objected to your switch, how would the ombudsman know which process can or should followed? The only way is to look at the SLC's in question which state what a supplier should do and is allowed to do.

In my example, in ruling a supplier objected without grounds, they are in breach of the SLC which provides the grounds.

If the ombudsman didn't use the SLC's, they would be using their judgement of fairness which would bring inconsistencies between similar cases.

I think their statement regarding the SLC's is ridiculous as it contradicts their TOR and sends a message that they don't consider the licences that are managed by Ofgem, MRASCO & Elexon.

The other side of the argument is the view these regulatory bodies would take of an Ombudsman who doesn't consider their licences, processes & directives which they expect industry trading parties to adhere to.

Perhaps its worth complaining that they are breaching their own TOR. Afterall, they are signed onto the ombudsman scheme and they have a framework of governance above them to ensure they operate inline with the expected quality standards of the scheme.

Ofgem are happy, they wanted the EO because it meant they no longer had to all with consumers. They retain a Consumer Affairs Team to report breaches to and I hope everyone on here bombards that team and the energy minister.

The fact the ombudsman won't speak to complainants who have escalated their case due to flawed ruling of their junior staff is shocking!

backfoot

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Perhaps its worth complaining that they are breaching their own TOR. Afterall, they are signed onto the ombudsman scheme and they have a framework of governance above them to ensure they operate inline with the expected quality standards of the scheme.

Ofgem are happy, they wanted the EO because it meant they no longer had to all with consumers. They retain a Consumer Affairs Team to report breaches to and I hope everyone on here bombards that team and the energy minister.

The fact the ombudsman won't speak to complainants who have escalated their case due to flawed ruling of their junior staff is shocking!

Thanks Terry,

A perseptive post throughout and just picking out some of your observations.

I am always optimistic that having submitted a comprehensive and well argued case that the 'actual' Ombudsman will see the obvious breaches by EDF and their obstructive complaint handling. If they don't and they cite 'not within their remit' then unfortunately I am forced to test the terms of reference. Once again it should be an obvious win.

You won't be susrprised to learn that Ofgem Consumer Affairs have been alerted to the original complaint and the subsequent EO referal and this thread.Not because I want special treatment, but because I wanted Ofgem to monitor a live case from a customer's viewpoint. I may be biased but the whole thing has been shoddy and is disappointing in terms of the research and effort I have put in compared to the quality of response.After all,they should be the experts.

Yes it is an extraordinary protocol not to talk to the parties. Bizarre in my view. They can still remain impartial and review the complaint.

Terrylw1

I completely agree with your approach in providing a Red Dye test.

I also believe that Ofgem should make use of consumers in a similar fashion to mystery shoppers so they can monitor the consumer experience and learn from it.

Its clear that the OE has been exposed as not fit for purpose. Its only consumers like you and others on here that will improve it as these poor agencies thrive in an environment of individuals who have no awareness of other users.

I wonder what they do with those user quality surveys and how public they are?

steve-L

The initial problems is generic to ombudsmen and regulators.
This is meant to make something easier to resolve than going through the legal system. (I guess)

The problem comes when it doesn't.

What are clearly breaches of contract and could be dealt with in small claims court get routed into the ombudsman/regulator track.

I have no experience with the energy set but I do over telecoms and simple cases just get bounced.
In the end the energy company knows you are going to be passed to someone with no teeth nor interest. Small claims court is a bit luck of the draw but this means they need to behave as they might be hot with costs in excess of what they can screw out of a consumer.

Overall it seems everyone concerned is happy to set the bar low on a level of service and meeting the SLC's. The focus is allowed to be setting an SLA for 'answering' regardless of resolving.

Just my 2c

backfoot

Small claims Court can give a good route to resolution for contractual disputes and I have had good experiences and success.

Unfortunately,many customers are afraid of the Court process and many disputes are more procedural or customer service based, where energy customers are encouraged to use the Ombundsman Services. The whole complaint process directs an unhappy customer to their offices.

It would be all well and good and the fee cost to the Supplier is an incentive,in theory, to resolve a complaint. The EO may well be performing well with many of the complaints they handle but there is evidence that if the issues are complex or have wider implications, then they are a body without teeth or expertise.

My complaint is essentially a simple question of whether a supplier has adopted the requirements of the Regulations prescribed for giving information on a Direct Debit calculation.That issue is probably the most recurring issue appearing on this energy forum.The posters who have looked into those regulations are united in agreeing that EDF did operate outside of those regulations, not just in my case but all.

My first port of call was Ofgem because I could recognise that it would need the authors of those Regulations to confirm whether EDF were compliant. Although entirely sympathetic, on the issue at stake and particularly so on the obstructive complaint handling, I was re-routed to the EO because I am individual.

Once there, the test of SLC compliance falls into a black hole as I have described.EDF introduced a 'legal defence' involving another non associated SLC. For some reason,they are allowed to do this and a Junior Investigator has to make a judgment. They didn't even think they should ask Ofgem about that defence and argued it was not in their remit. The defence in my view is completely bogus and was a blocking tactic for which EDF should be taken to task.I think they did this as they realised they would have to rewrite their DD software with huge cost implications.

I think Ofgem should have sole control and be closer to the action. They should be aware of any complaint which demonstrates systemic failures and immediately take enforcement action.At the moment such issues are taking far too long to come fruition such that widespread problems continue and affect more customers.The existing protocol is far to unwieldly.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

backfoot wrote:

I think Ofgem should have sole control and be closer to the action. They should be aware of any complaint which demonstrates systemic failures and immediately take enforcement action. At the moment such issues are taking far too long to come fruition such that widespread problems continue and affect more customers. The existing protocol is far to unwieldly.

backfoot, I agree.

The case of "systemic failures" I have been documenting in the Thread:
"Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract"
is IMHO clear, easy to refute (or confirm / prove). I hope that Ofgem will:

1. Look at this situation.
2. If npower are in breach of the SLCs stop them from using their 'new system'.
3. If they have already given npower permission to continue 'breaching SLCs' they should at least publicly state the grounds. I fail to understand how Suppliers can legally breach SLCs without Ofgem giving them explicit permission.

I also agree with Terrylw1 in Post #26 - above in this thread.

Terrylw1 wrote:

I completely agree with your approach in providing a Red Dye test.

I also believe that Ofgem should make use of consumers in a similar fashion to mystery shoppers so they can monitor the consumer experience and learn from it.

Its clear that the OE has been exposed as not fit for purpose. Its only consumers like you and others on here that will improve it as these poor agencies thrive in an environment of individuals who have no awareness of other users.

I wonder what they do with those user quality surveys and how public they are?

I have added emphasis to quoted version of Terrylw1's Post.


25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

backfoot

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig wrote: »

backfoot, I agree.

The case of "systemic failures" I have been documenting in the Thread:
"Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract"
is IMHO clear, easy to refute (or confirm / prove). I hope that Ofgem will:

1. Look at this situation.
2. If npower are in breach of the SLCs stop them from using their 'new system'.
3. If they have already given npower permission to continue 'breaching SLCs' they should at least publicly state the grounds. I fail to understand how Suppliers can legally breach SLCs without Ofgem giving them explicit permission.

Thanks. I think your situation is another excellent example of a potentially bigger issue. We have seen many others.

Sadly,the hurdles we face, are extremly painful as we saw with NPower Gas Sculpting, Eon's DD policy also breaching SLC's, Unfair Exit Fees on variable contracts, EDF's Welcome Bonus etc. etc. In all those cases, Forum Members proved the quality of their research and argument and eventually won on behalf of the wider population.

It shouldn't have been such hard work and proved Ofgem and the other agencies were only 'barely' reactionary rather than really proactive,even when alerted.

Unfortunately you will need to put your case into the system. As you know I was also not given Contract Documentation on my recent switch with SP. and I am still waiting for the SP Rep to explain what there normal procedure should have been, for the benefit of all customers. It should only take 5 minutes and already it looks like they would rather forget it.

Good luck with your campaign.:)

Terrylw1

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig wrote: »

backfoot, I agree.

The case of "systemic failures" I have been documenting in the Thread:
"Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract"
is IMHO clear, easy to refute (or confirm / prove). I hope that Ofgem will:

1. Look at this situation.
2. If npower are in breach of the SLCs stop them from using their 'new system'.
3. If they have already given npower permission to continue 'breaching SLCs' they should at least publicly state the grounds. I fail to understand how Suppliers can legally breach SLCs without Ofgem giving them explicit permission.

I also agree with Terrylw1 in Post #26 - above in this thread.



I have added emphasis to quoted version of Terrylw1's Post.


25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

I remember years ago that an entire division of one of the big 6 that I was working for had to have a training update of the Guaranteed Standard Of Service (GSOS). Earlier than this we all had Priority Service Register (PSR) training as Ofgem were bringing it in.

In each of these cases, we were all told that Ofgem had the power to perform a flying visit' as it was termed. This allowed them to turn up and should they wish to ask individuals who they came across in that visit about these areas, they could.

Never heard anything after that. Never heard of any such visit.

Interestingly, Elexon have similar powers and guess what?...yes, they have conducted several of these under the name of a Technical Assurance Visit (TAV). These were originally aimed to take place within a matter of days on quite complex & wide ranging issues (more technical & complex than Ofgem's activities). It was only via a senior manager arguing that anything less than 7 days was inconvenient that pushed it back and this was purely due to gathering members of staff from various company work sites, arranging any testing facilities, etc.

I recently kept an eye on a change to a process that linked into Ofgem's SLC's. I can't give specifics due to the nature of what happened but I can say that all Ofgem wanted was someone to say "Yes, we've done it" because if they had wanted to audit it...they would have seen a breach. A senior manager of the time didn't even want to spend money making it compliant since "What they can't see, they can't raise an issue over" and "Well, we will fix it if Ofgem tell us to" hence happy to operate non compliantly until exposed. Not an issue that they are at fault for not implementing the correct method.

Part of me wonders whether Ofgem are aware of the issues they may find.

I just don't think Ofgem follow up on SLC's so its little surprise that profit grabbing wins out over a conscience within suppliers.