What do you do if the Ombudsman gets it wrong??

richpb7

So no chance they can't download this specific PDF then, in the same way that I can't. As an expert in ICT systems I wouldn't be surprised if the same problem could occur inside, but then again I'm no expert on energy companies, and have never worked within them in that capacity, so will bow to your knowledge.

jalexa

richpb7 wrote: »

You might be interested in this document which I came across indirectly from another thread.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar11/directors-report-2010-11.pdf#page=64

Terrylw1

richpb7 wrote: »

So no chance they can't download this specific PDF then, in the same way that I can't. As an expert in ICT systems I wouldn't be surprised if the same problem could occur inside, but then again I'm no expert on energy companies, and have never worked within them in that capacity, so will bow to your knowledge.

Its very very unlikely.

They are transferring into SAP, but there previous systems are VB style front ends to a billing back end so all actions passed through the front end have to pass over to the other system to update the front end view. Being an ICT expert, that might sound familiar to you.

Not as sure about the SAP side but given its a newer product, I'm guessing you will be. Its similar front to back ends but more efficient in terms of update I believe.

One possibility is that you have been migrated over to SAP and the previous bills where it occurred where in the legacy system. The SAP side will retain some history which will be transferred over and a certain amount will be passed to a microfiche or digital history reader of some kind.

They only started migrating last year and are still doing it. It could be possible that it was on the legacy system but was missed by the complaints team?

The chance of it being in the back end and not visible by the front end, I think would be remote. Its very common for data to be held in the back end in error, generally trading data, but I doubt its common for bills because it would prevent action on accounts.

cing0

The Energy Ombudsman (AKA Ombudsman service) are behind the curve in this regard. They don't disclose case files so you can't work out if they have made mistakes hence the reason for this policy http://www.ombudsman-services.org/downloads/Unacceptable_actions_policy_2011.pdf to forewarn the frustrated.
I have noticed http://www.ombudsman-services.org/service-standards-os.html has been updated and reflects (copies) the FOS policy.

jalexa wrote: »

You might be interested in this document which I came across indirectly from another thread.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar11/directors-report-2010-11.pdf#page=64

Terrylw1

richpb7 wrote: »

I think the key phrase from the ruling is this:

In npower’s representations, it considers the Code would not apply in this case as it states that the amended statement issued on 15 February 2012 reduced the outstanding balance on your account from £1,902.74 to £583.93.

That's what the Ombudsman quotes as to why they changed their mind, and that "the estimated readings that were used were actually overestimates rather than underestimates." As can be seen from the chart though, this is patently not true. The estimates are either very close to usage, or one of the two very, very low early ones.

That figure above, the £1,902.74 is a direct result of the fake bill - that debt never actually existed, it seemed to be an internal !!!!-up after I complained because they transposed the meter reading from November 2009 to October 2011.

I know the timing is hard to get your head round, but the chart clearly shows a stable meter reading pattern and a clear rising debt due to low direct debits, all well documented by the bills I have. Then all of a sudden this very weird bill appears on the 13th of Feb 2012 with a huge hike to £1,902.74, which is suddenly replaced by a new bill 2 days later which drops it again. Isn't that odd? They create a bill out of nowhere, which is based on incorrect readings that conflict with every other reading, and then correct it almost instantly showing a massive drop in charges. They submit this as evidence that their rebilling has cut what I owe.

There is a problem with the ombudsman's statement here.

They are claiming that by withdrawing a fictitious bill that they created, they are satisfied that the supplier has acted correctly. That's a seperate problem though to your earlier issue of DD's that weren't tracking with your usage.

In suggest you read sub clause 7 and the Payment Arrangements section of the ERA billing code. The ombudsman should be looking at that which ties very nicely with your issue.

You could Aldo quote SLC27.14 & 27.15 of Ofgem's Standard Licence Conditions (SLC) which state it must be accurate to data/usage and clearly explained.

See the supplier .PDF's in this link to Ofgem's site.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Licensing/Work/Pages/licence-conditions-consolidated.aspx

richpb7

Terrylw1 wrote: »

The chance of it being in the back end and not visible by the front end, I think would be remote. Its very common for data to be held in the back end in error, generally trading data, but I doubt its common for bills because it would prevent action on accounts.

There might be something in this after all. I've been preparing packs to send off in paper copy as part of a formal complaint to the Ombudsman, as the deadline expired yesterday. As I was doing this I noticed something rather odd - the design of the key Npower bill from May 2011 that I'm using in my defence is different to all the other designs. The bulk of it is the same, but the dark red header is missing. Now this might be a simple stationery issue of course, but all the other bills are the same, i.e. not only the historical bills that have been produced, but also the new bills that have very recently been produced - they're all exactly the same, only the May 2011 is different. That suggests the possiblity at least that this has been generated from a different system.

richpb7

Terrylw1 wrote: »

In suggest you read sub clause 7 and the Payment Arrangements section of the ERA billing code. The ombudsman should be looking at that which ties very nicely with your issue.

Thanks, that was always my main complaint, I've made sure it's now explicit in my formal letter to the Ombudsman, which I'm copying in Npower as well. The whole thing is a bit of a farce, it's almost as if the Ombudsman is scared of Npower!

Terrylw1

richpb7 wrote: »

There might be something in this after all. I've been preparing packs to send off in paper copy as part of a formal complaint to the Ombudsman, as the deadline expired yesterday. As I was doing this I noticed something rather odd - the design of the key Npower bill from May 2011 that I'm using in my defence is different to all the other designs. The bulk of it is the same, but the dark red header is missing. Now this might be a simple stationery issue of course, but all the other bills are the same, i.e. not only the historical bills that have been produced, but also the new bills that have very recently been produced - they're all exactly the same, only the May 2011 is different. That suggests the possiblity at least that this has been generated from a different system.

That's very interesting.

These kind of companies tend to outsource their fulfillment. So, all bills via that route would just be produced to the standard format.

Usually, well always from what I've seen, if you used a transaction to request a copy of a bill, it would still, go via the same route but be directed in-house to the requester.

This presents 2 possibilities to me:

1 - its archived. So, in producing bills earlier than this, are they the usual format? If so, it suggests it can't be due to this system. The bill seems too recent to be archived though.

2 - its manually produced using a bill template either in a system such as SAP (legacy systems didn't have these types of functions) and printed locally. Or it could have been a template in something like MS Word. Again, it would be locally printed. So, maybe someone carelessly forgot to put some letter headed paper in the printer?

If its 2, it does also present the possibility of a bill that doesn't exist anywhere being created, if you catch my drift?

I doubt it would be something stuck in a back end as how would they find it now if not before? If it was visible but not printable, it would make sense but they could have still provided earlier via route 2 above.

Terrylw1

richpb7 wrote: »

Thanks, that was always my main complaint, I've made sure it's now explicit in my formal letter to the Ombudsman, which I'm copying in Npower as well. The whole thing is a bit of a farce, it's almost as if the Ombudsman is scared of Npower!

It might just be me, but I read this statement as applying to the section of back billing that is concerned with unbilled energy.

Be firm with the ombudsman. On the EDF thread backfoot has running, there is 2 examples of them trying to remove the SLC references from the case which I regarded as weakening their cases. After discussion on the thread, they questioned this and the ombudsman backed down.

They seem very keen to stay out of SLC issues but its impossible as they are needed to validate the suppliers actions in many cases.

Good luck!

richpb7

Sounds like the May bill might be archived then. Although I have later bills in a different format, these are not reprints of existing bills, they are new bills that have no historical counterpart. That would explain the discrepancy.

In my formal complaint about process to the Ombudsman, I'm stating that the original complaint was under sections 5, 6 & 7 of the code, as Npower failed to:

• maintain accurate meter and metering data
• use valid readings provided by the customer
• reassess regular payments within the previous 15 months based on accurate information available to them

The meat of the complaint is in specific mistakes which the Ombudsman has made though, most notably the failure to spot that a meter reading that Npower allege was taken in October 2011 was actually from November 2009. They state in black and white that they have checked this information against previous bills, and find no problem with it, which is a bit of a duhhhh moment. Guess they're just overworked and underpaid - but then again, who isn't?!

Thanks again for all the help, I'll write back with any update one way or the other from the complaint, but don't hold your breath!