The Energy Ombudsman - Good or Bad ?

undaunted

Terrylw1 wrote: »

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?

I'm not so sure that it isn't more based on the adujicators whim. I say this because in the case Npower versus the vulnerable the energy ombudsmans suggested resolution would have included customer reducing balance to £200 or less and then being allowed to switch and customer receiving £30 credit to cover out of pocket expenses

undaunted

backfoot wrote: »

The whole point of the 2009 Ofgem Investigation was to make it better. Read the report.

backfoot wrote: »

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.

You are possibly less cynical than me then. I'm far from convinced that the agenda of either Ofgem or the Energy Ombudsman is to protect or make it better for the consumer.

Ofgem used the same "single incident" get out in the Npower versus the vulnerable case. Customer asked what is the point of rules if not enforced when broken but had no sensible response to that.

backfoot wrote: »

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.

You may be right. Again, being a little cynical I sometimes wonder whether the aim of the system is to frustrate you until you get fed up and go away.

backfoot

undaunted,

I can't disagree with your analysis.

Perhaps I am an eternal optimist and eventually someone who is supposed to listen will keep to their side of the 'apparent' bargain.:)

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

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].

Prompted by Jalexa's challenge above, I have revisited the details of my complaint and whether the EO report contains a fair adjudication.

An ordinary customer wouldn't rely on SLC's. They wouldn't even know what a SLC was. If they didn't understand a DD change,they would ask the Supplier.The nature of the beast is that you would be given a generic response based around consumption, seasonal weighting and possibly temperature weighting.

It rarely satisfies and some find a route to this Forum or maybe Ofgem's website.The Ofgem Guidance Leaflet is the document prepared specifically to help customers.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/directdebitleaflet.pdf

The relevant sections for my case as a new customer are highlighted.
Ofgem wants you to understand how to get the best out of paying by direct debit. This includes making sure you are paying the right amount and that you know what to expect from your supplier.
What you can expect from your supplier:
Information on how your direct debit is calculated
Your supplier should clearly explain this. Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that your direct debit payments are based on the best available information, for example, on how much energy you have used. If you are an existing customer, your payments will be based on energy use over the previous year with adjustments if there have been any price changes. If you are a new customer, the payments will be based on a number of factors including previous meter readings and the number of rooms and/or the number of people living in the property.
Information on why your direct debit needs

changing and by how much

If your payments need to change, your supplier must explain why. If they need to be increased you will also be notified at least 10 days in advance. However, if you don’t understand why your payments are increasing don’t be afraid to contact your supplier and ask for an explanation.
A clear response to any question or complaint
If your supplier is unable to answer your question or resolve any complaint to your satisfaction within eight weeks, you can ask that your complaint be referred to the Energy Ombudsman (now known as the Ombudsman Services: Energy).

So that is what I did, as they had changed the DD and I couldn't see why, as I had only just agreed a recovery amount following gas not being set up, for the first three months. As they must have done a calculation, I asked them to share it with me.

They first delayed and later said they didn't have to because of SLC31A, saying customers less than one year cannot have a calculation. The usefulness of any information soon became out of date.
Nowhere in the leaflet does it make any exemptions or exceptions which excludes them from providing an explanation.
We hadn't changed the number of rooms or the number of people in the house, so what the basis for the change?Consumption patterns were normal.

In order to properly understand a change we all need to see the calculation, otherwise you are guessing what they have done and won't understand it. The leaflet obliges the Supplier to clearly explain it.

If the Energy Ombudsman honestly believes that SLC31A overrides SLC27, then they made an incorrect ruling in finding I am now entitled to that calculation. (February :rotfl:)There needs to be a significant change to the Licence and the Ofgem Leaflet, to state that these requirements are not applicable to customers of less than one year.

Am I missing something or is this blatantly obvious that EDF failed and the EO has also failed ?
I can't test anything further as all I was doing was asking for information to see if it the new DD made sense. It was a simple information request to which I thought I was entitled.It is exactly the same starting point for most customers (e.g. Snowcat's example).
Isn't that worth pursuing on behalf of all of us?

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Prompted by Jalexa's challenge above...

It was quite a narrowly focused post. Given that one comment was "The reality is a poorly funded organisation performing poorly" I am a little surprised at your "I disagree entirely with your post", but perhaps you were focused on a perceived sentiment.

It is central to my slightly laid back approach to the complaint process that I consider the organisation is as I described it. Stated simply we differ tactically.

I consider the main point of the post was the (general) issue of interpretation, illustrated by a specific example. Its a little disappointing the point hasn't stimulated any forum debate about interpretation. I have no idea what the Ofgem legal suits intended but for the sake of argument what if the assertion is that the wording implies a narrative explanation of the form "the payment is set to achieve a zero balance by the 'annual review' date based on our projected consumption"?

You will recall there was once a clause interpretation which some suppliers interpreted as allowing certain tariff increases on "guaranteed discount" tariffs without any right to cancel without early termination charges. You will recall Ofgem eventually took a position beginning "It was always intended to capture...". Maybe, if Ofgem state their legal suits intended that then it was "intended", but the clause didn't read that clearly to me, or I suspect, some tariff designers.

I'd still welcome forum opinion about what is meant by "basis" in SLC27.14.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

I'd still welcome forum opinion about what is meant by "basis" in SLC27.14.

I pointed out the background and quoted the best practice from the 2009 Ofgem Report. That specifically said an individual explanation.(post 38)

An individual explanation implies a calculation. An individual explanation, in my case requires them to give me a calculation or I don't understand it.

The Leaflet says I can ask for an explanation. If they don't satisfy me, I can keep asking for 8 weeks, then get the EO to help me get that explanation.

I am using the common sense meaning which Suppliers like Scottish Power and SSE have adopted. Eon are moving that way. If a supplier changes a DD, it must have a 'basis' which involves a calculation, otherwise it is a random number.

I took this forward for the Forum to get clarity. I was hoping my previous post would have shown that for the average customer EDF aren't fulfilling their obligations.

This is the only case before the EO and they found in my favour, but added some comments that they supported EDF's defence of SLC31A. It was a first to claim this exemption and the two decisions are incompatible.

I have now exhausted the EO process and my intention was to challenge them and take it back to Ofgem. It really doesn't matter how much we debate the word 'basis' on the Forum, it is only when contact is made with the EO and Ofgem will it get decided.

I have now decided to continue on with it and will comment again when I have heard back from Ofgem or the EO regarding any further complaint.

snowcat53

Backfoot -I agree 100% with your approach and view of the situation, and thank you for continuing to pursue your case.

On the issue of what 'basis' means, we could debate this tiil the cows come home but until Ofgem rule what was intended it seems pointless. For the record though in the EO judgement on my case in August (see 'EDf fail Ofgem..'.thread post 289 etc) the letter stated.

"You contacted EDF.[..] asking for an explanation of a recent increase in DD amount [..] .....The advisor provided a general explanation as to how edf uses an estimated usage over the next 12 months to calculate a monthly payment amount. .... I am satisfied that the response was reasonable however I appreciate you wished to have a more detailed explanation".

and

"You have continued to raise concern that EDF does not provide an explanation when first informing a customer of a change in DD amount. You consider this is in breach of SLC 27.14. This states the following [ text of SLC27.14.]

EDF has provided me with a copy of your bill .....This shows a DD review. for both gas and electricity. The payments have been increased to £xx per month....The bill shows this is based on an estimated future gas usage of £xx and electricity usage of £xx per month . I am satisfied that EDF has presented the appropriate information on its bills in accordance with SLC27.14. However I accept that EDF should be able to provide a more detailed explanation when a customer requests this."

In other words the EO thought this was adequate as an explanation of 'the basis' of how the DD is calculated as required in the SLC, and detail/calculation is only required to be given on request.
However such an explanation is merely an assertion of what they think your usage will be, and could 'explain' an increase or a decrease of any amount. Sadly the EO has invented a quite unjustified extra term 'a more detailed explanation' and now requires customers to ask for that as well .

snowcat53

PS
On another point I just spotted this gem in an EDF letter which was trying to explain in proper detail a DD calculation " if a refund is processed outside the annual review period then this can confuse the payment scheme".
Given that they have to refund a large credit balance on request, this seems to be an admission their system is not fit for purpose

Terrylw1

The word "basis" can mean anything from the bottom of the structure, a practice, a calculation, pretty much anything.

So, its too vague and I think suppliers & the EO are taking advantage of this and applying their own reasoning.

The SLC needs a change of wording perhaps more to reflect the actual calculation.

Basis, can mean all the elements involved in arriving at a figure or statement so it could be argued that this means the full calculation.

Perhaps its worth asking Ofgem to confirm the actual meaning of it? After Tue usual frustrating searching of their documents, I'm struggling to find anything.

When SLC's are proposed, they are circulated to supplier & other bodies with their reasoning being them. This is what is needed.

To me, well I'm a typical operational type person, I can only explain it if I understand it. So, if basis does mean "high level", I don't understand how supply staff could be expected to advise customers on it. Doesn't the guidance document also specify supply staff must be trained to do so and documentation should exist?

The calculation is within SAP and did EDF have this issue before? I can't remember it being so bad.

So, is the real issue one of their SAP design? SAP is "configurable" so you will have a process written to take X value from X table which is based on X data flows data item. Then you will have X% for expected change such as weather forecasts.

All this is covered in a Functional Specification (FS). Even if the configurable items are marked as "to be agreed" there will be a full audit trail of later configuration changes. IS guys wouldn't leave themselves open to later recriminations from the business.

If I wanted to access that, and it wasn't confidential hence needing higher sign off, I wouldn't expect to spend more than a week batting emails around at the most.

So, I suspect a combination of corporate dithering and deliberate attempts to prevent public exposure.

I really dislike Ofgem's view of singular breaches being "beneath them". Good job they aren't into law enforcement! I can understand that it could cause a lot of lost time investigating dead ends but what about the real breaches?

I can understand why the OE says it can't rule on breaches but as I've said before, they can add a disclaimer stating it is of their opinion but not binding as requires Ofgem investigation. The OE stated they could refer breaches off. They can also contact them for clarification purposes.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

An individual explanation implies a calculation...

You quoted thus from the final decision... "The final decision requires EDF Energy to:

provide details of the direct debit reassessment that took place on 6 February 2012;"

So is it your understanding that is the detailed calculation you seek, something which Snowcat's decision "However I accept that Edf should be able to provide a more detailed explanation when a customer requests this" appears to be helpful towards?

Secondly do you have to accept the 'final decision' for Edf to be bound to comply? If so I hope you will accept and share the calculation for comment. Perhaps it would helpfully inform your further work with Ofgem.

Another question, has the Ombudsman made a 'final decision', among others things requiring Edf to provide "details", without having had sight of the details which are required to be provided? I ask that because the response to Snowcat is quite profound. The Edf bill/statement/recalculation shows only a 12 month projection but I have bespoke email evidence (and there is much circumstantial evidence) that the Edf process is a "payment year" ending on a fixed 'annual review' date. Consequently the Edf Statement incorrectly or incompletely describes the "basis" of the review. In that case the EO investigation officer was incompetent, but then we had probably already made that judgement.