Feed-in Tarrif form returned/rejected ?

kilan

ilkley_lad wrote: »

Hi Kilan, did your installer show you the forms, get you to sign, take them away, then send you a copy later after he had sent another set to EDF ? as thats what mine did - I suspect all of them do as thats part of the service.


Now before any one tells you that the FIT generator (you and me) must send the forms - the OFGEM rules are that the generator must SIGN the forms, it says nothing about who sends them in, thats why solar installers will do it for you.

Hi Ilkley Lad, the Solar installers rang in advance, told us to have our FIT application printed and ready for when the Solar PV was going to be installed. The Installer filled in 90% the form, and left it with us. We were left with filling minor details and signing the declarations. But he had crossed out the section where he felt did not apply to us. We had no reason to doubt him, being a professional.

I have now been been told by the Solar installers that it is the generator (ie Customers) responsibility to make sure the form is correct, before it is sent.

However at no time were you or I informed by our solar installers, that the ownus is on the customer for the FIT form to be filled in correctly. If my installer had informed me of this to double check with EDF before sending them, I would have 100% done so.

Glad to hear CAB have been of help, may also go to them for advise too. I have also taken up a complaint against EDF Energy with the energy ombudsman, since other energy suppliers have allowed there FIT Forms to be rectified. It seems only EDF are playing hard ball and using loopholes to refuse giving the 21p/kWh.

rogerblack

kilan wrote: »

using loopholes to refuse giving the 21p/kWh.

Can someone address the more technical issues of this?
Neglecting the actual form-filling issue, is there a cost to the generator of paying out 21 vs 16 p?
Do they bear the entire cost, or do they have no incentive to do this, other than being required to only accept properly filled out forms.

Martyn1981

rogerblack wrote: »

Can someone address the more technical issues of this?
Neglecting the actual form-filling issue, is there a cost to the generator of paying out 21 vs 16 p?
Do they bear the entire cost, or do they have no incentive to do this, other than being required to only accept properly filled out forms.

Hiya Roger, I had lengthy chats about exactly this issue with an EDF manager in August.

Not sure if you read the posts, but my extension was installed on the same date that new OFGEM guidance was issued. So my EPC being the day after the commissioning date, meant I got the minimum tariff (only relevant to extensions) - later resolved.

I got on really well with the manager who was extremely helpful. I made the jokey comment, I suppose playing hardball saves the govt some money. But she said that technically it was they that saved money, since they already raise the Green Tariff on leccy bills. I asked if it was worth it, and she said no, as these issues cost a fortune in staff time dealing with e-mails, phonecalls and letters, and staff getting verbally abused by disappointed customers.

She made a few interesting comments. Firstly that there system uses all of OFGEM's rules, so, in my case, by entering the offending dates for the EPC and commissioning, it simply could not allow any result other than the then 9p to come out the other end.

Secondly, and quite fairly I thought, she stated that if it was up to her she'd allow all of the genuine oddities to pass, such as lost letters, typo's etc. I pondered this for a second, but I doubt anyone 'being clever' would deliberately miss a key tariff banding date, what would they gain, or in my case simply avoid the problem by arranging an EPC earlier - so I think it's fair to say, that in most cases, a quick review and chat with the customer would be enough to separate the genuine mistakes, from the chancers.

In the two examples detailed in earlier posts, you can see how PV'ers honestly accepted the advice and guidance of their installers - so no intention to deceive, and no real penalty to anyone of simply awarding them the expected tariff - using their MCS certs for dating purposes.

I've no idea if EDF are any harsher than the others. I chose to submit my docs via e-mail, then rang them as soon as the delivered receipt arrived, and asked them to go through it while I was on the phone. But even that wasn't foolproof (nothing is foolproof as fools are too ingenious!).

@ kilan & ilkley lad, best of luck.

Mart.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

She made a few interesting comments. Firstly that there system uses all of OFGEM's rules, so, in my case, by entering the offending dates for the EPC and commissioning, it simply could not allow any result other than the then 9p to come out the other end.

As I understand it, the data protection act, and subsequent legislation means that you can't just say 'computer says no' - if there are questions about the rationality of the decision.

If the integrity of the data processing system is called into question, then there has to be a procedure for a manual review.

This is not something I've investigated in any great detail though.

Martyn1981

rogerblack wrote: »

As I understand it, the data protection act, and subsequent legislation means that you can't just say 'computer says no' - if there are questions about the rationality of the decision.

If the integrity of the data processing system is called into question, then there has to be a procedure for a manual review.

This is not something I've investigated in any great detail though.

That's a good point. I was pondering earlier how FITs applications have set times (defined by the tariff dates). Whereas in life we usually get to try again - school exams, driving tests etc.

Does seem awful harsh to apply set date cut-offs, given that the MCS cert could be used to establish a commissioning date - assuming of course that we trust the installers.

As for rationality, this is OFGEM guidance and rules that we are ultimately being 'tested' against. In my case I fell foul of the rule - valid EPC by the later of, and assumed FITs application was later than commissioning date, only to find that OFGEM choose to use the original FITs date (not the extension) thereby making the commissioning date the 'later'.

Almost sounds reasonable until you consider the legislation itself, which states that an extension must be treated as an entirely separate install.

If OFGEM aren't acting rationally, what hope do the RECs have?

Mart.

kilan

rogerblack wrote: »

As I understand it, the data protection act, and subsequent legislation means that you can't just say 'computer says no' - if there are questions about the rationality of the decision.

If the integrity of the data processing system is called into question, then there has to be a procedure for a manual review.

This is not something I've investigated in any great detail though.

I have been curious about how the Central FIT Register works, I found the Central FIT user guide online for FIT Licensees ie EDF.

Add www.

ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Documents1/Central%20FIT%20Register%20User%20Guide%20December%202011.pdf

Energy suppliers have a backlog of FIT applications, they input the applications after the deadline, I definitely feel like contacting OFGEM and asking what on Earth is going on. OFGEM should consider reviewing their legislation, but it is very unlikely that will happen. A further reduction of tarrif is looming too 1st November

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's a good point. I was pondering earlier how FITs applications have set times (defined by the tariff dates). Whereas in life we usually get to try again - school exams, driving tests etc.

Does seem awful harsh to apply set date cut-offs, given that the MCS cert could be used to establish a commissioning date - assuming of course that we trust the installers.

I was specifically addressing the issue of if the rules are being incorrectly implemented by the software, rather than if the rules imposed by parliament/OFGEM are fair, which is not questionable by other means than judicial review.

ilkley_lad

Hi Kilan, my installer brought the forms with him, marked at where I was to sign, he then took them away and the rest is history. EDF just quote the ofgem regs and say that it was not a complete application, so they can not allow it. Ill see what advice I get from the CAB and post it here if it will help, but they did say that the installer is the professional and should have known and is in breach of contract ? If I cannot get the lost revenue back then if he loses his MCS certificate (Ive made an official complaint to them), then he'll struggle, but tough, should have been honest in the first place. Its worth a call to your local CAB any how.

edfnightmare

My application was received by eDF before the 1/8/12 deadline for 21p but they claim in mid September that the declarations are missing and they won't pay the 21p rate.

I have got them to accept that if I give them everything they ask for before 1/11/12 I will at least get the 16p but can still dispute not getting the 21p rate after that.

I think they have a case to answer for negligence as they have a policy of playing hardball with the rules but also not checking applications by the rate change deadline. This means that any problems with the paperwork automatically cost the generator money - that's negligence in my book.

It seems to be standard practice for installers to deal with the forms so they should have a responsibility but so do the electric companies and they are the ones that I think are being negligent if the combine two contrary policies like eDF. If you don't check the forms in time you should allow people to correct issues and honour the application date. If you are not going to give people a chance to fix problems later then you must check before the deadline and notify generators of problems. If they don't fix them after being notified then they don't get the right rate.

We can't prove we sent the missing declarations, which we are sure we did, but then eDF can't prove they haven't lost them whilst they left them sitting around for 6 weeks either.

Any ideas.

Capt.Radar

Hi,
I have exactly the same problem with EDF FIT regristration.
How convenient for them - they make an application form so complex to complete its almost impossible to avoid missing something, then delay replying to the applicant untill a lower FIT tariff applies!
We would all do the same if we could?
In my case, the same as many others, I missed the 'Multi-installation declaration' thinking mine is not a multi installation, so does not apply.
I had already ticked the 'NO' box in the form, section 5 = 'Other installations you own or recieve FIT payments for'.
So, just to confuse the applicant fully, they ask the same question here in section 5, which further encourages you to ignore the later multi installation declaration, because you have already declared NO!
I cant believe we dont have a strong legal case against EDF and their deliberate delays?
Any Legal Eagles out there who can advise?
:mad: