British gas broke into my home!!

JimmyTheWig

coochy123 wrote: »

I would assume, going into one of those sorts of buildings that the ground floor would be 217a, 2nd floor 217b and 3rd floor 217c

Then where would number 217 be?

spiro

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Then where would number 217 be?

In this instance the building is 217 and the flats are A, B and C. In ECOES they are likely to be addressed as:
Building Name/Number = 217
Sub-building Name/Number = B

Terrylw1

Wolf3 wrote: »

Also other comments with regards to the meter serial number can be taken with a pinch of salt. In all likelihood the meter that was removed had a similar number to the flat upstairs if they had been installed or re-certified on the same day. You might find, if your supplier will confirm, that the engineer noted the slight difference in serial number on his records.

Then using that logic, the warrant officer could know that he is looking at a meter for a different property.

Its not to be taken with a pinch of salt, upon finding a different meter number the warrant officer would have to at least need to contact the supplier incase the debt is the suppliers fault in not updating a meter change.

If the warrant officer had queried this, it could easily have been established that he was standing in the wrong property.

NiftyDigits

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Then using that logic, the warrant officer could know that he is looking at a meter for a different property.

Its not to be taken with a pinch of salt, upon finding a different meter number the warrant officer would have to at least need to contact the supplier incase the debt is the suppliers fault in not updating a meter change.

If the warrant officer had queried this, it could easily have been established that he was standing in the wrong property.

Trying to send you a PM, but your Inbox is full.

Terrylw1

NiftyDigits wrote: »

Trying to send you a PM, but your Inbox is full.

Thanks, just cleared a few out.

Wolf3

I perfectly agree the mistake shouldn't have happened if more care had been taken in executing the warrant, however i also understand the reasons why this mistake was made. Crossed meters are regular occurrence in the industry

The points i was hoping to put across was a resolution to the problem and i would suggest the supplier would offer some compensation as a goodwill gesture

I know plenty of cases where the meter details on site do not match the records of the MOP or supplier
The majority of older meters will show the year of certification on supplier records instead of the year of manufacture which shows on the meter
ie L84S123456 instead of L78S123456

plus a number of meters on record up in Scotland will only show part of the actual serial number shown on the meter, that's just the system the particular MOP's like to employ

Terrylw1

Wolf3 wrote: »

I perfectly agree the mistake shouldn't have happened if more care had been taken in executing the warrant, however i also understand the reasons why this mistake was made. Crossed meters are regular occurrence in the industry

The points i was hoping to put across was a resolution to the problem and i would suggest the supplier would offer some compensation as a goodwill gesture

I know plenty of cases where the meter details on site do not match the records of the MOP or supplier
The majority of older meters will show the year of certification on supplier records instead of the year of manufacture which shows on the meter
ie L84S123456 instead of L78S123456

plus a number of meters on record up in Scotland will only show part of the actual serial number shown on the meter, that's just the system the particular MOP's like to employ

SWEB's incumbent MOP also set up partial meter numbers and sent them to all required parties due to a change in systems and the fact they didn't want to spend money updating to reflect the true meter number. Given issues like this caused they initial analysis of ECOES prior to launch to be full of duplicates, its a pity the industry didn't clamp down on such dodgy practices!

The cert year issue relies on the MOP doing a mass update. Suppliers aren't fond of these updates as they cause a lot of manual processing or projects to mass update. To be honest, I've only ever come across it a couple if times so I suspect the records may often be out of line between MOP & supplier, with MOP staff not referring them to it when they ever call. Money saving on the MOP side possibly, also possible it could be supplier influence in saving money where they are part of the same group.

Hopefully the OP is getting somewhere with a complaint. I suspect they will have to micro manage the situation with the meter detail updates though.

At least its the same supplier to both properties though eh?

Wolf3

At least its the same supplier tor both properties though eh?

I suppose i could say "Thanks Heavens for small mercies" but that doesnt make the situation any better for the OP