I've been sacked by nPower as a customer - should I be concerned?

rjsdavis

jalexa wrote: »

I suspect that is probably your usual exaggerated revenue protection scaremongering. I mean b*ll*x.

I didn't really know what was meant by "shipperless" but Google was my friend. This is a relevant Ofgem discussion, not law but an indication of their thinking.


There appears to be no direct connection between "shipperless" and disconnection. The disconnection protocol is *exactly* as a "deemed" supplier would manage debt. Read it and tell me what you think.

And a side note for the OP. Read and digest the "deemed" provisions.

Thanks Jalexa - again, very helpful!

I interpret "shipperless" as not applying to me by this PPT definition because there "isn't" a presently registered shipper. (They've withdrawn themselves and cancelled the contract - I agree that in my scenario, there was a previous supplier - which in this instance, and as of today is now nPower). Therefore, "charging under normal deemed contract provisions....." can't apply either for the same reason?

By the definition of "Unregistered sites" this doesn't apply either, as there clearly HAS been a supplier.

Therefore, I don't seem to be either shipperless or unregistered by these definitions - am I missing something? Everything else stems from these definitions and are pretty crucial to determining the exact position legally. If this is correct - what category / definition do I fall under/into?

rjsdavis

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well that's being open, but it isn't being honest.

Why don't you want to pay for the energy you use? If you don't pay, then all other customers who do pay also pay a bit towards yours too.

It is, as I'm giving an honest opinion and state of mind. I could pretend to be holier than thou, but who actually is?

If you feel that you're getting a 100% fair deal from your energy supplier - it would be hard to argue with your point of view, and I wouldn't.

If, however, you feel to some or a greater extent that the energy companies are screwing you over, then I would challenge you not to agree with me to some extent.

It's not the way that everyone should and can fight back, but we need to, however we can, otherwise we're just going to continue to get screwed over by all of the corporate giants forevermore.

Similar sceanrio to petrol suppliers? Maybe. What would be the result if we all boycotted one fuel supplier for a fortnight and everyone bought their fuel elsewhere? They'd either go through financial hell and very severe financial punishment, or they'd be forced to drop their prices to attract more custom. Customer wins, as the others would have to follow suit.

I'm not very union'y or protestor'y per se - but haven't we all had enough of seeing these major energies continue to spiral energy prices upwards even when the underlying wholesale prices haven't? Take a look at the major energies profits over the last decade as their prices have spiralled - have they increased their prices simply to make an operating profit and share some of the pain of the economy with their customers? Have they !!!!. They simply increase, and increase because we don't do anything about it.

jalexa

rjsdavis wrote: »

I interpret "shipperless" as not applying to me by this PPT definition because there "isn't" a presently registered shipper. ....

Hmm...don't understand your logic there????

Therefore, I don't seem to be either shipperless or unregistered by these definitions - am I missing something?

I researched and posted that ppt to debunk industry insider "puffing" of a term that a layperson might not understand, specifically poster chanz's connection between "shipperless" and precipitate disconnection, something I do not believe is supported by the definition. My challenge on that was dissed "no its called reality" without any sense of understanding. TBH I expect better from an industry insider.

OK, to answer your point, I guess we need to understand the definition of "shipper". There is plenty on Google, but having read a few I'm not much wiser, but for the sake of argument until corrected by anybody who does know, I'm supposing a "supplier" also requires to be a "shipper".

If that is true then QED you are "shipperless". And if that holds then in fact you are liable to be "deemed", which is another way of saying all your (deemed) consumption from the point of becoming "shipperless", as evidenced by the meter, is liable to be charged at "standard" rates.

Again, (if true) then it is in your interest (i.e. cheaper) to upgrade from a "deemed" contract to an elected tariff with the regional supplier.

[Deleted User]

We use the term "shipper " to describe the supplier, proberbly an American term.
I would advise the OP to contact a supplier asap. you never know, N.power may now have it in for you and watching your next move.
there is a house a few hundred yards from me where the supplier( BG )ordered the digging up of the pavement at the house and removing all cables and pipes and meters to the property The reconnection fee is many thousands, so the tenants informed me . The house is still without any supplys and is boarded up and still vacant five years later. I have never heard of that happening anywhere else
Well done OP for stuffing Npower, I have never heard of that happening before either

rjsdavis

jalexa wrote: »

OK, to answer your point, I guess we need to understand the definition of "shipper". There is plenty on Google, but having read a few I'm not much wiser, but for the sake of argument until corrected by anybody who does know, I'm supposing a "supplier" also requires to be a "shipper".

If that is true then QED you are "shipperless". And if that holds then in fact you are liable to be "deemed",

I agree with all of this logic, however, interpret the definition as defined in the PPT differently.... It says:

•Deemedcontract applies where either:

–A supplier issupplying gas otherwise in pursuance of a contract (Gas Act, Schedule 2B para 8(1)), or

–Thereis a registered shipper and previous supplier (Gas Act, Schedule 2B para8(2))

Therefore;

1 - As at today, there is not a supplier supplying gas otherwise in pursuance of a contract (therefore, deemed contracts cannot apply). (This is different to their actually being gas coming in through the pipes of course).

2 - At at today, there is not a registered shipper (nPower have cancelled the contract as at August 2012, therefore I must be shipperless (?!) from this date. The noteworthy technicality of this paragraph is that according to this definition, there needs to be both a registered shipper AND a previous supplier. I only qualify on one of these points at today's date. Tenuous I agree - but still correct.

What does this mean? Lord only knows...!

Terrylw1

Shipper is a term from the gas industry, supplier is the elec industry. So, you will find that staff from each industry background refer to their original lingo.

To be "shipperless" you have to have no registered supplier in the distributors database. This is a problem because the only way a supplier can do this is to Logically or Physically disconnect the MPAN. This process forms part of the suppliers licence and its not valid to do this to withdraw business.

To understand why a supplier can't do this, you have to understand the charging system in place that is the responsibility of the Balancing & Settlements Code (BSC). Consumption is retrieved and validated by reading agents contracted by the supplier who pass this data to the distributor for charging back to the supplier. This means that as long as these reading agents are contracted, they will continue to pass reading data or estimates to the distributor to enable charging back to the supplier.

Take elec as an example of this:

The Data Collector, the reading & validation agent, gets your readings from suppliers (your customer readings or PPM key reads) and site visit reads (routine readings from the Data Retriever (the meter reading company) and physical changes from the Meter Operator (meter changes, fuse changes, etc)). They validate or fail it, pass valid data into settlement as well as 12 month forward forecasts into an agent called the Data Aggregator who's job is to ensure settlement data is valid and there are no gaps. This agent then passes data to the distributor who creates a Distribution Use of System (DUoS) charges schedule which the supplier pays at 14 months.

So, in thinking about your case & the fact only a full disconnection can remove the current supplier by end dating their trading marker in the distributors database, does it seem possible this can happen to you?

Whilst the supplier remains registered in the distributors database, they pay for your energy. The only way they can prevent this is by de-appointing their contracted Data Collector. They can't de-appoint the Data Aggregator as it must be updated via the distributors database at the same time as end dating...thus then can only do this when you switch away from them or they change their contracted Data Aggregator.

So, what if they de-appoint their Data Collector only? Well, this does stop reading data & the 12 month forward forecasts reaching the Data Aggregator so there is no bill. However, the industry has a rejection report which picks this up and sends a rejection to the supplier of the time as registered in the distributors database. The BSC licence enforces the suppliers action to resolve this and how do you resolve it...yes, you got it...by re-appointing that Data Collector to cover the missing period.

So, can this be achieved in elec? Definitely not. There is no industry process to remove a suppliers registration marker other than a switch or a full disconnection.

What will happen? The supplier remains liable, can't disconnect you for non payment as they are causing it, you switch eventually and Npower get billed by the distributor up to your switch read. So, how can they effectively do this?

Terrylw1

A few things to point out from other posts in this thread that the OP needs to understand:

- Supplier of Last Resort is something that Ofgem introduced to protect customers from suppliers going into administration or have their licence revoked. It provides a framework for Ofgem to give another supplier authority to mass switch customers without objection to allow continuation of a supply contract. It does not occur without a Last Resort Supply Direction from Ofgem and is not for individual disputes like this.

- there is nothing to suggest reversion to the old PES host supplier which would be potentially detrimental, anti competitive and may not even be possible if the suppliers systems cannot cope with the extra volume. Its clear that it cannot be detrimental hence Ofgem have to find the best solution for the customers which could mean multiple suppliers.

- last resort is nothing to do with distributors as they are not defined as licensees. They have no real mechanism of supplying customers as that's not their role in the market.

- disconnection has various guises, which are de-energisation with meter in place (pulling meter fuses, clamping or collaring gas meters, etc), meter removal or a supply removal known as full disconnection (which is Physical where cabling is removed or Logical if its just removal of a secondary MPAN and the primary remains hence no distributor visit).

- suppliers can't do anything outside of their registered period. So, in this case they can attempt to disconnect by removing the fuse or meter but they still have to justify their action to a court to obtain a warrant, which won't be possible for a case like this.

- distributors can't just cut people off either. The distributor is still getting paid or can chase the supplier to resolve any missing settlement period if required, so why would they perform a full disconnection? Since the customer hasn't interfered with the supply, they will find themselves in serious trouble without obtaining a warrant.

Terrylw1

rjsdavis wrote: »

I agree with all of this logic, however, interpret the definition as defined in the PPT differently.... It says:

•Deemedcontract applies where either:

–A supplier issupplying gas otherwise in pursuance of a contract (Gas Act, Schedule 2B para 8(1)), or

–Thereis a registered shipper and previous supplier (Gas Act, Schedule 2B para8(2))

Therefore;

1 - As at today, there is not a supplier supplying gas otherwise in pursuance of a contract (therefore, deemed contracts cannot apply). (This is different to their actually being gas coming in through the pipes of course).

2 - At at today, there is not a registered shipper (nPower have cancelled the contract as at August 2012, therefore I must be shipperless (?!) from this date. The noteworthy technicality of this paragraph is that according to this definition, there needs to be both a registered shipper AND a previous supplier. I only qualify on one of these points at today's date. Tenuous I agree - but still correct.

What does this mean? Lord only knows...!

1- yes there is as the Deemed contract applies and there is a current supplier registered in the distributors database.

2 - since shipper & supplier are just terms derived from different industries that have the same meaning, they are the same thing.

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

If you are refussed supply, they give you 28 days to swicth after this time if you have not they can withdraw the supply. Electricity act also does not state this, your refering to the SLC.

Also if the supply goes shipperless they dont need a warrant, they would either disconnect on the overhead cable or dig up the main cable forcing you to pay for a new service.

Yes, they won't need a Warrant Of Entry as they are working outside the property, but that doesn't mean they don't have to take all necessary steps.

Do they have to obtain a warrant to disconnect though or does the Act clearly define the steps they must take to ensure the consumer has been treated in accordance with their rights? For instance, you could move into a shipperless site without any knowledge of the problem and the distributor coming out to disconnect you would be an action that would surely see them losing in court after getting a media bashing first?

Can you post the 28 day section? In elec, there is no way a supplier can force a customer to leave as they are bound by the Deemed terms and how the settlement process works won't even allow a supplier to do it.

The only way I know that this happens is by "managing" the customer out with higher pricing.

SLC22.7 does allow them the right to give 7 days notice but that's only to refuse moving from a Deemed contract to an offered contract.

nPower

Hi rjsdavis,

This sounds a bit strange and we've never come across this type of letter saying we would be closing your account.

Please could you send me your details to [EMAIL="forumresponse@npower.com"]forumresponse@npower.com[/EMAIL] and I can find out what's happened here and get this sorted for you?

Many thanks,

Adam