Dicky economy 7 time switch for 15+ years

Terrylw1

A 60/40 split is a non scientific way to re-assess (the pre deregulation method), another method is to replace and monitor which takes longer or use historical data when it was working. No method will really be accurate enough, so its a balance of accuracy & fairness.

In terms of liability, it is the supplier, not the agents as the supplier has a licence that covers their investigation of possible faults. The Meter Operator can't see these issues unless someone sends them out, which is the supplier, and the asset owner doesn't get involved at all in any of this in industry processes.

To the OP, work out each deal and take the best one.

Every time the meter reader was there, the supplier had a data flow showing the readings so could easily see the fault.

In terms of the 1kwh advance, this is seen as the natural slippage of an unused meter over a year but this doesn't seem to happen in faulty time switch cases. The supplier is being a bit ridiculous by using this as actual movement as its obvious it can't be. 1kwh advances are also created by the suppliers Data Collector (validates & transmits the meter reader results) in certain circumstances so it could be this but if so, your meter would show as lower.

riam_2

Ok, the problem with comparing what's on offer is that Eon won't actually tell me! All they'll say is that from time to time the meter hasn't moved over a 3 month period and for those periods only, they would be willing to do the 60/40 split. The alternative on offer is to rework 8 years of bills to the standard tarriff. How they work out which 3 month periods it didn't move is beyond me as I have NEVER supplied readings so the vast majority of bills have been estimates.

Please E.on representative could you explain this. I'll PM you just in case you don't see this, but I'm also interested in anyone else's views as Eon would like me to agree one way or the other and I feel I'm not being put in the picture.

What I'd like is to 60/40 every unit back to 2004, but they claim to only be able to do this for the periods when the bills show meter didn't move. My contention is that as most bills are esimates this is unfair to me.

Thanks for all the replies.

Edit: It seems I can't PM Malc the Eon rep. So please Malc, can you clear up this estimated bill situation and clarify if I can push for the whole lot to be re-assessed 60/40 which I would be happy with.

Former_E.ON_Company_Representative:_Malc

Hi riam

Sorry you're not happy with the discussions so far.

A specialist team looks after time switch issues. They're the ones with access to more meter details than general advisors. They'll be the ones looking after your complaint.

I understand you've not supplied any meter readings but has a meter reader called during the last few years? Is the meter outside and accessible to a meter reader without the need to bother you?

It may be there are readings registered against your meter that the time switch guys have used to determine their estimates.

As you're unhappy with their proposed resolution, I'd ask for this to be escalated to a senior manager. This is part of our complaints process.

If you remain unhappy, you can refer the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent review once the complaint is over 56 days old.

You can go to the Ombudsman earlier than this if there's no room for further discussion. If this is the case, ask for a deadlock letter to be issued.

Malc

riam_2

Thanks Malc, no meter is in the cellar. It's been dicky, sometimes working, sometimes not.
Their view is if it moves at all it's been fine for the whole period.
Mine is that's obviously not true.
I'll try and talk again, but not got any faith they're being honest as first time I tried they denied there'd been a problem before 2010, but now saying back to 2004. In other words they tried to fob me off, basically by lying and hoping I'd swallow it. I'm sure you can understand why I still feel they're not telling me the whole truth.
Also they refuse to calculate any rebate until I agree to go one way or the other.
It's not on to behave like this - there should be a law against it.

riam_2

Update for anyone who's interested.
I held my ground. Eon's tactics are simple.
First they say you're entitled to nothing.
Then you get a different person who claims they have no idea why you were told that, as they've looked into it and you're entitled to next to nothing.
Then if you press, they'll tell you you have to agree to the vague next to nothing offer before they can work out what it is.
Then they'll pass your case onto yet another person who will claim they have no idea why you were told that and actually you're entitled to a proper refund. What's more they can work out exactly how much that is and let you know without you agreeing to anything.
Call me a cynic, but all these people work in the same office. They should be ashamed of themselves. In effect they've over-charged me for years and tried every trick in the book to keep the money even though it wasn't theirs.
It was only my persistence that got a reasonable refund eventually, though I suspect even this wasn't the whole story and perhaps if I'd have been prepared to carry on I'd have got more of my money back. I think this way because even though I haven't had economy7 for the last two years, the last person readily offered to calculate a 60/40 split even for these years which is a bit wierd.
I got them to refund just shy of £1500 eventually and agreed because frankly I got worn down and there is no readily available info on what I was lawfully entitled to.

So there you go. Top tip for dealing with Eon is assume they are lying and don't give up.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Any 60-40 split over any 52 week cycle is in your favour. How many full 52 week years did they offer resulting in a £1500 return ?

riam_2

8 or 10 years... I forget.

Richie-from-the-Boro

That's £150pa including those years when leccy was less than half the price, and includes 2 years or £300 when you were not even E7, well done that man, although I do agree you did have to work for it given their reluctance to deal in an even handed and fair way with you in the first place.

riam_2

On reflection maybe not such a bad payout. It's just they've been so dishonest throughout makes me suspicious that even that wasn't the whole story. Never mind, water under the bridge.

macman

So now hit the comp sites and get a competitive tariff.