We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

The Energy Ombudsman - Good or Bad ?

Options
1235789

Comments

  • undaunted
    undaunted Posts: 1,870 Forumite
    Terrylw1 wrote: »
    Quite a poor judgement and doesn't seem independent to me.

    The Energy Ombudsman is funded entirely by the Energy Companies isn't it? I think you have to question whether any such system can ever be truly independant.
  • backfoot
    backfoot Posts: 2,700 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 20 November 2012 at 1:17PM
    undaunted wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder whether they reach the decision they want to reach & then try to make the reply fit!

    Looking at yoyur post


    are surely incompatible - as B obviously requires A to be determined in spite of what is said there[/LEFT]

    Thanks undaunted,

    The review certainly went out of its way to support the original report despite the evidence. Not only that, but when requested to review alongside Ofgem, they adamantly refused to do so.

    This bit in their reply really amused me.

    'While being mindful of the regulations within the industry it is not our role to investigate whether a company is breaching its licence.'

    It's an admission that they haven't judged the evidence against the SLC, Ofgem's Report or the Guidance Leaflet. What did they think the introduction of SLC27 was all about? Was it just some words to back up spending millions on a consultation exercise?

    I quoted from the EO Terms of Reference earlier in the thread and part of that is, adjudicating against the Regulations. If they don't then how can a customer ever enforce the Regulations against an intransigent Supplier.

    '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;'
    It's a bit more than being mindful :rotfl:


  • steve-L
    steve-L Posts: 12,981 Forumite
    backfoot wrote: »
    I would imagine they would revoke the DD discount.
    Not if you leave the DD in place and then just revoke the payment each month? Well they might try but then you are sticking to the contractual terms in a literal sense....so long as you make sure you actually pay what is owed and maintain the DD I think they might be on a really sticky wicket actually cancelling the DD discount? (You are after all not cancelling it merely revoking it when they have not stood up to their side of the contract)
    I like the thinking outside of the box, but this matter affects all customers seeking to understand their DD's. As a matter of principle, I asked EDF to abide by the clear Regulations. They didn't, and now the EO is blind to the facts and literal meaning of the words.
    Hence I admire your stand but you might do more good setting a precedent (since you seem as stubborn and pig headed as I do over this sort of thing) .... Its worth thinking about, if you do it and get it to work then others can copy and soon they will realise its cheaper to just be upfront?

    I bet it will cost them well over £1000 a go in admin in their inefficient organisation.
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    undaunted wrote: »
    The Energy Ombudsman is funded entirely by the Energy Companies isn't it? I think you have to question whether any such system can ever be truly independant.

    Its something that's always bothered me. The same with Ofgem.

    I know that several senior supply managers have moved into regulation, Elexon in the cases I heard of. The Elexon manager also commented on some who drift back and forth.

    So, it could be the same for such as the OE.

    The whole point of the charge for referral mechanism is to allow a free service to consumers, fund the OE and penalise suppliers thus giving them motivation to improve and avoid referrals. But they seem to be biased towards suppliers in all the cases we've seen posted on here.
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    undaunted wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder whether they reach the decision they want to reach & then try to make the reply fit!

    Looking at yoyur post


    are surely incompatible - as B obviously requires A to be determined in spite of what is said there[/LEFT]

    Exactly.

    Some SLC's are quite clear cut e.g. SLC14 which I gave an example of previously. You just can't decide someone is operating incorrectly without understanding what is expected of correct operation.

    It seems the OE take their own view based on what they believe is reasonable. For instance, stating something is corrected now is not relevant at all to the complaint since it would be expected as part of the resolution anyway! I really hate it when a complaint is devalued on the basis of a later correction...when the customer has been trying to get that for months.

    We also have an issue in that the original investigation officer attempted to remove all reference of licence breaches. That implies a motive.

    I think the DD sections of the SLC's are a little vague and the OE has taken advantage of this.

    It would be interesting to see a DD projection case from a switch because SLC25 is documented to a higher standard leaving the OE less hiding places.
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    You say that the goodwill award of £20 does not reflect the issues that we have found against EDF Energy. Furthermore, you say that this complaint has taken considerable time and effort on your part and that you find the £20 award derisory. I do not award compensation for time spent dealing with a complaint. Any goodwill payment awarded is an acknowledgement of the shortfalls in customer service only. You have experienced delays in responses to your complaint but I am of the view that the goodwill award is reasonable to acknowledge the shortfalls in customer service.

    I don't think its acceptable that the OE don't consider the financial detriment to a customer in making lots of calls, sending letters (often recorded), etc.

    If EDF had acted as expected, a customer would not have to go to all that expense to get it corrected.

    At a minimum, if the OE sided with the supplier on policy issues but account problems were corrected via the complaint process, I would expect all costs up to that point to be considered.

    Not refunding for costs has always been a standard company policy to me, its not considered at all unless the customer really pushes. This isn't to say that's right, just that companies try to steer clear of it as many customers would have a legitimate claim. Perhaps the OE has the same corporate style policy on it?
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • backfoot
    backfoot Posts: 2,700 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 21 November 2012 at 10:29AM
    steve-L wrote: »
    Not if you leave the DD in place and then just revoke the payment each month? Well they might try but then you are sticking to the contractual terms in a literal sense....so long as you make sure you actually pay what is owed and maintain the DD I think they might be on a really sticky wicket actually cancelling the DD discount? (You are after all not cancelling it merely revoking it when they have not stood up to their side of the contract)


    Hence I admire your stand but you might do more good setting a precedent (since you seem as stubborn and pig headed as I do over this sort of thing) .... Its worth thinking about, if you do it and get it to work then others can copy and soon they will realise its cheaper to just be upfront?

    I bet it will cost them well over £1000 a go in admin in their inefficient organisation.

    I welcome your input.

    My stand on this isn't motivated by personal gain but a desire to stand up against a Supplier who has systematically ignored the Regulations. On putting in their new system EDF produced some extraordinary DD variations documented by many posters here.

    As a customer, I thought I would follow their process and challenge them against the Rules and protection afforded to customers. It soon became clear that I was not going to get very far with EDF, so the next protection is to refer to the Energy Ombudsman.

    In between times, I had contacted Ofgem to see what they could do about the blatant ignoring of the SLC 27 which seemed to be ingrained in their system design and hence would affect all EDF DD customers. Ofgem are alerted but due to their protocols they, 'apparently' need more evidence than a single referal to commence any enforcement action. I personally think this is negligence of duty by Ofgem but we can park that for the time being.

    So I was intent on trying the EO experience to seek resolution and hopefully get a decision which supported my stand. To some extent, that was acheived in that one of the decisions was for EDF to provide the calculation, that they should have done back in february.

    Unfortunately, the wording they have used contained completely muddled reasoning. So I asked for a review in the hope of unravelling their decision to something clearer. The outcome, in my view, is even more muddled than the first go and now introduces wider questions about how such decisions have been made. Amongst other things, the EO has got itself into muddled thinking, saying they can't consider SLC's and at the same time making interpretaions in isolation of Ofgem and the background to the License modification in 2010. Basically, they have ignored the literal meaning of those Licenses and supporting Guidance.

    Furthermore, they have now specifically said that SLC31A was not an invalid defence to the requirements of SLC27. What authority or reference or precedent is there for that? If it was a valid defence then, in logic, they wouldn't have said that EDF should now provide the DD calculation. The other consequence would be that the License would require further modification and the guidance Leaflet amended to say, don't ask for answers if you are a new customer of less than a year. Basically, the EO trapped in a corner, has made a untenable decision.

    There are other inconsistencies which give so much mileage to now bringing the EO to book over it's own sloppy and slow investigation.

    Your own suggestion may have some merit for some customers, but for me, I would rather try and follow the chain of procedure to test its effectiveness. Hopefully, I will win a more significant victory, rather than circumventing the real issue.

    What I have found, is that Suppliers and the Regulatory Authorities are very slow to realise the gravity of a situation and how it can escalate. I was told by Suppliers, their Solicitors, many posters on MSE that I was wrong for taking up the illegal charging of Exit Fees on variable priced contracts. Eon battled for ages on their DD policy with MSE posters before conceding and DirectDebacle was victorious over Npower regarding gas sculpting, in spite of Ofgem failing to do their own duty at first attempt.there are other good examples.

    This situation now is so clear cut as to be laughable but EDF, the EO and Ofgem drag their feet in spite of the evidence. We will get there sooner or later. :)
  • backfoot
    backfoot Posts: 2,700 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Terrylw1 wrote: »
    You say that the goodwill award of £20 does not reflect the issues that we have found against EDF Energy. Furthermore, you say that this complaint has taken considerable time and effort on your part and that you find the £20 award derisory. I do not award compensation for time spent dealing with a complaint. Any goodwill payment awarded is an acknowledgement of the shortfalls in customer service only. You have experienced delays in responses to your complaint but I am of the view that the goodwill award is reasonable to acknowledge the shortfalls in customer service.

    I don't think its acceptable that the OE don't consider the financial detriment to a customer in making lots of calls, sending letters (often recorded), etc.

    If EDF had acted as expected, a customer would not have to go to all that expense to get it corrected.

    I am not hunting for a pot of money. However, the principle remains important. The EO has powers to make awards of up to £5,000 and the average setllement is around £180.

    So in a case like this, where they found that EDF should have supplied the information over 9 months ago and I have had to chase it this far,through all the legal process, how can £20 be a fair assessment? :rotfl:

    If they don't take account of time spent, the degree of obstruction and the inconvenience, what measures can possibly be used.

    The Financial Ombudsman does take such matters into account.

    I am firmly of the impression that they see me an annoyance and they are going to give me nothing or as little as possible.

    The review is so worded and the compensation award totally derisory.

    On the customer complaint handling, Ofgem already accepted that the obstruction was so severe, that they immediately handed it over to the already open Investigation into their Complaint handling.

    £20 :rotfl:
  • jalexa
    jalexa Posts: 3,448 Forumite
    edited 21 November 2012 at 10:47AM
    backfoot wrote: »
    'While being mindful of the regulations within the industry it is not our role to investigate whether a company is breaching its licence.'
    Sorry to poop the party but that might be the only correct thing they said.

    There is a huge gap between "out of it" Consumer Focus and "never in it" Ofgem Consumer Affairs Directorate. The reality is a poorly funded organisation performing poorly. Partly because of funding ombudsman organisations are hugely risk averse to commenting about narrow interpretation. Their case fee would be burned up in about 1 hour of QC opinion (but the suppliers funds are essentially "limitless").

    While I am on about narrow interpretation it is worth revisiting SLC27.14. "The licensee must provide ... an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined."

    Is the Energy Ombudsman wrong if they are not entirely sure what is meant by somebody else's choice of the word "basis"? "Basis", alongside "clear, plain and intelligible language" troubles me because I want an arithmetic calculation, but not everybody may be comfortable with an arithmetic calculation.

    [as an aside E.On have confirmed in this forum that a full arithmetic explanation will be provided on request].

    So I think your Energy Ombudsman case is the wrong test. We need a test solely on a customer dispute (with Edf) centering around supplier failure to agree a particular payment amount.

    But the informed experience here is that Edf always agree to reinstate the previous correct payment when asked nicely. Well that has been my experience. If it wasn't I would have tested the Energy Ombudsman by now with the "sole test".
  • backfoot
    backfoot Posts: 2,700 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 21 November 2012 at 4:18PM
    jalexa wrote: »
    Sorry to poop the party but that might be the only correct thing they said.

    There is a huge gap between "out of it" Consumer Focus and "never in it" Ofgem Consumer Affairs Directorate. The reality is a poorly funded organisation performing poorly. Partly because of funding ombudsman organisations are hugely risk averse to commenting about narrow interpretation. Their case fee would be burned up in about 1 hour of QC opinion (but the suppliers funds are essentially "limitless").

    While I am on about narrow interpretation it is worth revisiting SLC27.14. "The licensee must provide ... an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined."

    Is the Energy Ombudsman wrong if they are not entirely sure what is meant by somebody else's choice of the word "basis"? "Basis", alongside "clear, plain and intelligible language" troubles me because I want an arithmetic calculation, but not everybody may be comfortable with an arithmetic calculation.

    [as an aside E.On have confirmed in this forum that a full arithmetic explanation will be provided on request].

    So I think your Energy Ombudsman case is the wrong test. We need a test solely on a customer dispute (with Edf) centering around supplier failure to agree a particular payment amount.

    But the informed experience here is that Edf always agree to reinstate the previous correct payment when asked nicely. Well that has been my experience. If it wasn't I would have tested the Energy Ombudsman by now with the "sole test".

    I disagree entirely with your post (rare but there you are).

    They didn't need QC's opinion. A simple referal to Ofgem for guidance or interpretation would do the trick. Or any informed Ombudsman may have researched the background to the License Modification and found the detail I posted about best practice and transparency. (post 38 ).

    Even if there was no requirement to post a calculation' at the time of a variation, they should have done so, as a minimum,on request.

    Furthermore, EDF say that a customer is not entitled to a calculation unless they are a customer for more than a year. That has massive implications and was a defence plucked out of the blue. Don't you think that needed challenging? The EO has said that's a valid defence but hasn't provided any basis for such a finding.

    It's not my fault as a customer, that my case , may need the EO to work a little harder for their fee. What I do expect is logical findings and consistency which is not apperent from their report.

    I am sorry you are backing away with your support, but of course that is your entitlement. I can only present the facts of my case against the Regulations.

    A different case may test what you want tested but at least I am having a go.:)
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.