Just moved house - NPower objecting to EDF supply transfer

jalexa

spiro wrote: »

Technically if you said to an electricity supplier 'I am moving into property x on 1st September 2012' there is nothing in the rules stopping the supplier initiating a Change of Supplier there and then with 1st September 2012 as the supply start date.

If you say so but I am shocked it would be so easy to cancel an existing occupier who had not yet given notice and who is only required to give 2 days notice.

Any "pushing" should be to close-off that loop-hole.

chanz4

As the op was not responsible for the property, he would need a deemed contract for 28 days in his name. As jalexa has said it was someone elses account

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

As the op was not responsible for the property, he would need a deemed contract for 28 days in his name. As jalexa has said it was someone elses account

There is nothing in SLC14 stating they can object because you haven't been in a Deemed contract for 28 days.

Also, the Master Registration Agreement (MRA) has no provision other than suppliers need to have an 11 day gap in registration dates.

It may have been the previous tenants account with them saying their were issues to resolve. However, I believe it was Spiro that stated on a similar thread that they can ask the proposed supplier to mark it as a change of tenant. If they received this, they know that they cannot object as their are no Outstanding Charges.

Terrylw1

spiro wrote: »

Technically if you said to an electricity supplier 'I am moving into property x on 1st September 2012' there is nothing in the rules stopping the supplier initiating a Change of Supplier there and then with 1st September 2012 as the supply start date. If more people pushed for them to do this they might get their act together.

Yes, absolutely agree on this.

I feel this is a grey area really as I wonder what the legal position is on signing a contract to change supply for a property which you have no legal claim to.

I know it goes on, as you do, I just wonder how long it will take for Ofgem to clear it up.

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

They can object if an account isn't in your name, it maybe that the debt on the previous occupiers account is high enough to object to. Also their is no £200 minimum limit, so not sure where you have obtained this from.

Once the account has been setup, their isn't an issue moving and objections are automatic process. Also as they don't know your a new occupier, could be the old occupier trying to avoid debt they don't know any different.

The £200 limit was introduced into SLC14 around 2 years ago to allow prepayment customers switch with debts. Before, they were unfairly tied to a more expensive supplier when they may be part of the poorest demographic.

All came about after Energywatch & the CAB pursued Ofgem to sort out prices & back billing.

Terrylw1

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

They may cost the same per unit as standard tarrifs - however, there are a lot of tarrif cheaper than standard ones, based on a time commitment- payment method etc.

Had a slight issue with NPower myself. I moved into our new house, and it was supplied by NPower on a standard tarrif. I wanted to change however was told its a "deemed account" and can take up to 6 weeks to change to my account. I could at that point change if I wish.

I wasnt happy really as EDF had been the cheapest on the comparrison sites - with NPower a way off, and NPowers standard tafrif being several £100 more expensive than the cheapest I could get - HOWEVER, i did a ne comparrison from that date and NPowers newer fixed rate, online, DD tarrif was actually the cheapest. I rang them - and while I couldnt changer suppliers until the account was fully registered in my name - I could change to any other NPower tarrif - so I took the new one, which they backdated to the day I moved in (only a week, but still - cheaper leccy).

all in all it wasnt so bad - BUT could have been a real issue if Id wanted another supplier (would have had to keep NPowers standard tarrif in order to wsitch only 6 weeks later).

Personally I think its an abomination - and regulations NEED tightening. I (well we) are the customer, and I/WE should get to choose who supplies us, from the day we take occupancy. I/WE have signed no contract weith any company at the point of occupancy, and have not agreed any rates. While I understand things take time - any changes requested should be backdated to day one of the new owner/occupier once all the admin has been concluded - including a change of supplier if requested.

I agree in that you should be allowed to choose a supplier from day one, however the Utility Act states you are Deemed instead. Its not the suppliers, it an Act of Parliament that needs modifying.

The industry is built based on this rule, hence a supplier is only allowed to supply a future dated registration date. There is no policy of backdated registration dates.

You have to be Deemed because if this rule didn't exist, less scrupulous people would sit back and not approach a supplier. The result would be that the distributors lose out, lift their costs and suppliers would all have to increase their charges.

So, the issue should be raised to Ofgem who sit back and let you overpay.

jalexa

Terrylw1 wrote: »

There is nothing in SLC14 stating they can object because you haven't been in a Deemed contract for 28 days.

I agree that is what a close (and narrow) reading of the clause says.

However that (or another clause) specifies that the "gaining" supplier should notify the applicant of the reason for the objection but the OP reports that was not done. Until that apparent omission is remedied its speculation what the reason was.

I don't go with this "Day 1" argument. The current consumer remains in contract until they give notice, and only 2 days notice is required. Change of property ownership often "goes to the wire", the 2 day notice issue is an essential consumer protection.

I do not believe Ofgem would support jumping the gun in the face of a 2 day notice period for the outgoing customer. I remain unconvinced that a wider reading of relevant clauses and general application of "contract law" supports that possibility. There is clearly a contradiction and it wouldn't be the first.

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

I agree that is what a close (and narrow) reading of the clause says.

However that (or another clause) specifies that the "gaining" supplier should notify the applicant of the reason for the objection but the OP reports that was not done. Until that apparent omission is remedied its speculation what the reason was.

I don't go with this "Day 1" argument. The current consumer remains in contract until they give notice, and only 2 days notice is required. Change of property ownership often "goes to the wire", the 2 day notice issue is an essential consumer protection.

I do not believe Ofgem would support jumping the gun in the face of a 2 day notice period for the outgoing customer. I remain unconvinced that a wider reading of relevant clauses and general application of "contract law" supports that possibility. There is clearly a contradiction and it wouldn't be the first.

Very true but one has greater importance than the other.

The 2 day rule is just sabre rattling really and its been my experience that its ignored in favour of backdating. Otherwise an old occupant can call later (where the new tenant hasn't yet made contact) and receive a later end date this getting more standing charge billed and worse...it adds consumption if an estimate is used. I think this is poor as it gives the new tenant a freebie when they have acted in the same way as the previous tenant.

I don't know about all suppliers, but I just don't see the 2 day rule happening.

There are also going to be cases where suppliers don't action them, don't make notes or post goes missing. The consumer can't control these events fully hence it would be harsh to penalise knowing a complaint costs more to resolve than simply backdating correctly.

In terms of switching, you can get around the 2 day rule by the new supplier submitting the new tenant marker correctly. By doing this, the current supplier has no cover under the SLC to object.

undaunted

chanz4 wrote: »

As the op was not responsible for the property, he would need a deemed contract for 28 days in his name. As jalexa has said it was someone elses account

He / she must not have owed money for more than 28 days after the bill is raised in order to avoid any transfer block. That doesn't mean you have to have an account with them for 28 days though.

chanz4

undaunted wrote: »

He / she must not have owed money for more than 28 days after the bill is raised in order to avoid any transfer block. That doesn't mean you have to have an account with them for 28 days though.

a debt isn't a debt until 28 days, however the op doesn't know how long a debt was outstanding. If we take your friend for example, he calls a new supplier saying he is a new occ, the new supplier doesn't and wont know the name on the other suppliers systems. prime example why the object with debt