Just moved house - NPower objecting to EDF supply transfer

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

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

The way around this is to tell the new supplier you are a new tenant. They can them set the change of tenancy marker to show this.

The old supplier then receives this. To then object based on having no evidence of a customer account hence no bill, would not be within SLC14.

If the new supplier doesn't send it indicating this, the old tenants debt will block it. If the customer account is a closed debtor, the supplier still can't object as they know its a different customer.

chanz4

Doesn't happen though, as this is not how the systems flows work. Ideally but due to so many tenants / debt/tamper customers doing it its there for a reason.

If the account is closed, their isn't an issue

jalexa

jetblack61 wrote: »

No, the objection letter from EDF just said NPower have objected...

In an earlier post I said the "gaining" supplier should have informed you of the reason. That was incorrect, the current supplier to the property (in this case NPower) should have informed you.

"14.9 If the licensee makes a request in accordance with the Master Registration Agreement to prevent a Proposed Supplier Transfer of a Domestic Customer, it must give a Notice to that customer as soon as reasonably practicable after making the request:
(a) to inform him or her:
(i) that it has made a request to prevent the transfer;
(ii) of the grounds for the request; and
(iii) how the customer may dispute or resolve such grounds; and..."

Without that Notice, the grounds and "ways round" being discussed in this thread are just speculation. Can you post the *exact* grounds that Npower informed you of.

chanz4

more to the point whos name the letter was in, if in another occs name it should of been returned unopened

jalexa

chanz4 wrote: »

more to the point whos name the letter was in, if in another occs name it should of been returned unopened

That is an interesting point. If Edf were able to respond to the applicant (but Npower to somebody else) then there is a serious flaw in the process flows. My view however is that the flaw is in certain posters' impracticable interpretation of the regulations "in the round".

chanz4

I see it on a regular basis, so no the reasons why it happens. if a supplier let everyone go that claimed was a new occupier everyone would use it to avoid debt.

Terrylw1

It doesn't matter since SLC14.4 (a) states "Outstanding Charges from that Domestic Customer" so if the viand of tenancy indicator is set to reflect a change, they should jot object.

I don't doubt that you see it all the time, as do I, however it is a breach of this SLC and should be reported.

Suppliers breach SLC's all the time as shown on this board.

undaunted

chanz4 wrote: »

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

But it's irrelevant how long the last occupier owed any money for. All this customer has to do is, as I said above ask for their consumption to be billed from the date they moved in and pay that within 28 days of it being raised. If supplier doesn't bill them until the end of the quarter they can't object to the bill not having been paid therefore can't block the transfer.

Pursuing the old occupier for their debt is the suppliers problem not the new occupiers concern.

chanz4

Terrylw1 wrote: »

It doesn't matter since SLC14.4 (a) states "Outstanding Charges from that Domestic Customer" so if the viand of tenancy indicator is set to reflect a change, they should jot object.

I don't doubt that you see it all the time, as do I, however it is a breach of this SLC and should be reported.

Suppliers breach SLC's all the time as shown on this board.

I think I do, as I work on an rpu. You also seem hooked on slc, but don't forget the utility act also as one can counter act the other

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

I think I do, as I work on an rpu. You also seem hooked on slc, but don't forget the utility act also as one can counter act the other

The SLC's do make up a section of the UA so hopefully it won't in this case.

Its to the customers advantage knowing their rights under the SLC's given the majority of supplier staff won't know what they are.

Take your point, without going through the UA, i'm not sure if it would in this case. I know I've never seen anything in the Deemed clauses though.