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

rjsdavis

timmmers wrote: »

I missed a few posts in my haste to reply to smartass there, but it seems no-one has mentioned the costs you may be saddled with IF any physical work is done like meter changes, they are quite hefty charging for those things (about 250 quid the last I know of each), so maybe trying to obtain a new supplier (who will probably be able to give you info from a supplier perspective if they want your money).

Thanks Trimmers - at least I'm not the only one that thinks this!

rjsdavis

chanz4 wrote: »

You do know that they can bill you at dno rates, and that as you failed to assign as supplier can go back 6 years

Who can bill me "dno rates"? At the moment, as far as I can see, I have no supplier at all.... This is part of the nub of the issue that I'm trying to get to.

rjsdavis

JC_Derby wrote: »

Can i just say that Terrys posts are as always excellent.

From what I've read so far, I'd be inclined to agree!

Would be most interested to read what Terry's thoughts are on the position that I find myself in, and the best next step for an optimal personal outcome in this scenario....

tichtich

chanz4 wrote: »

You do know that they can bill you at dno rates, and that as you failed to assign as supplier can go back 6 years

I've only been in the flat 4 months, and I've been trying to get the situation sorted for most of that time. It's the previous tenant who may be getting a big unexpected bill. (I've got initial meter readings on the landlord's inventory report, so hopefully there won't be any question over how much electricity I've used.)

rjsdavis

tichtich wrote: »

I've only been in the flat 4 months, and I've been trying to get the situation sorted for most of that time. It's the previous tenant who may be getting a big unexpected bill. (I've got initial meter readings on the landlord's inventory report, so hopefully there won't be any question over how much electricity I've used.)

Can't see how they can do that, unless you've been silly enough to leave a forwarding address for them to reach you at. If they don't get the cash whilst the tenant is there, then this is tough luck for the supplier - they cannot hit the new tenant, as they will invoke a new moving in reading from the date that they moved in - the new tenant (nor the landlord) cannot legally be held responsible for any energy consumed but not paid for by a tenant (as long as they have a standard and well constructed Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement) that has since left.

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

What the supplier could do is withdraw from the mpan, although not ideal as it would make it shipperless but is possible.

I will look it up,not sure of the section off hand. Although they may not even be on deemed if they have been on a fixed tariff etc

It would be excellent if you add the reference in terms of the distributor.

I'm less experienced with gas but for elec, a supplier cannot withdraw from the MPAN. I've never seen any industry process that allows this and I'm not aware of any data flow in the catalogue that can achieve this.

The settlements process is built on seamless dates from meter first connection to final disconnection so a supplier is always registered.

For them to do what you are saying, the distributor would have to agree to end date the Data Aggregator and leave no way for the distributor to obtain their schedule of payment. This leaves the customer with the distributor, no customer protections and all the safety processes fall to pieces.

I really can't see Elexon allowing any supplier to do this. Given the whole data flow processing involved, I can't see that this can be achieved without distributor fudging and where is the BSCP or MAP to cover it? Never heard of it. Let's not forget that the supplier is also held by the Deemed contract legislation so if this was allowed (not considering the actual process) it would be in this...and its not there.

Terrylw1

1pinkpiggy wrote: »

A supplier can notify both national grid for gas & the local distributor for ele to inform them of a supplier less property. They can then come & disconnect your home if you don't take on a supplier.

So you may be b.est contacting mpas & nat grid to see if you still have a supplier.

For elec, no supplier will remotely care. Besides, they are not allowed to visit properties they are not registered to.

So, either the customer will point it out, the distributor finds out or a Meter Operator (who can often be owned by the distributor) tells the MOP.

A supplier can't back bill energy prior to a registration date and the customer may not go to one that did even report it...so its just not in their interest to care.

Terrylw1

rjsdavis wrote: »

Thanks again Terry - how exactly? (when you talk about the point about it being not being able to be achieved).

The settlement process behind the industry only allows for a seamless flow of data in terms of payments (settlement) through the agents to the distributors and back to the suppliers. This starts as soon as the meter is fit for elec as a supplier is the party who arranges this (shipperless sites were prevented in elec from July 2000 due to a key process change) but gas seems to have cases where meters are fit without registering a supplier first.

However, the shipperless scenario from a new connection is totally different to yours. In your case, your supplier is trying to withdraw their registration which is unachievable due to a) legislation states you are in a Deemed contract from moving in and they are also bound to this forced contract and b) its totally the opposite to the industry settlement process and how the industry was created in deregulation.

So, my question be to Ofgem asking them whether a supplier has the right to withdraw their contract with you when its Deemed or otherwise. A supplier is entitled to remove you from a contract you agreed to if you breach the t&c's, but you revert to a Deemed contract.

I've looked at the Act sections and Ofgem's SLC's and I can't see anything that allows them to withdraw from a Deemed contract. If it were possible, the industry would be in a mess because the legislation, SLC's & industry processes don't work with shipperless sites.

The industry is built on a structure of:

- suppliers contract with you and bill you.
- Meter Operators do the meter work.
- Meter asset owners own meters.
- meter readers read meters.
- meter reading validation agents validate & produce settlement values.
- distributors maintain the actual network.

There is legislation to cover the distributors billing of energy where consumers steal it. There is nothing that allows a distributor to become a supplier other than to have a trading entity to do so but this means they have to adhere to the standard industry model.

Looking back to elec, they actually removed the problem of shipperless sites as it was causing distributors to lose money as they couldn't use the industry processes to issue a bill to the supplier to bill consumers.

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

Still needing to contact someone else who you would like to supply you.

If the Couirts have reopeatedly backed you and Npower say they don't want to supply you they have no justifiable basis for objecting to someone else doing do.

Thereafter the outstanding dispute will have to be resolved at some stage but not with you under threat of being left without an electricity supply.

Given the threat of disconnection & Court backing you apparently have you could ask Consumer Focus to try & resolve it for you http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/

If it's still with the Ombudsman you could also query with them why action hasn't being stopped whilst they investigate.

If the industry did allow suppliers to de-register themselves, the objection process would become invalid as it requires a current supplier. So it would technically be a new connection but wouldn't require a meter fitting and the start reading would need providing as Deeming would be completely flawed since there would be no current agent to send the history onto the new one.

It can't work and has never existed as a process to my knowledge. A process allowing this would be the complete opposite of Elexon's work.

I thought that all action had to freeze when they are notified of an ombudsman case. So, that sounds like further failures in-house to add markers to the account but it could equally be rather nasty behaviour by collections people to ignore this in favour of results.

Terrylw1

rjsdavis wrote: »

Can't see how they can do that, unless you've been silly enough to leave a forwarding address for them to reach you at. If they don't get the cash whilst the tenant is there, then this is tough luck for the supplier - they cannot hit the new tenant, as they will invoke a new moving in reading from the date that they moved in - the new tenant (nor the landlord) cannot legally be held responsible for any energy consumed but not paid for by a tenant (as long as they have a standard and well constructed Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement) that has since left.

To add to your advice, a supplier can only bill from their registration date. This is achieved by proposing a future dated registration...it can't be backdated. So, the supplier has to take a customer reading to start the registration from, similar to a switch.

Anything prior to that is for the distributor to charge. Whilst Chanz is right with the statute of limitations, I would argue that applies in legislate cases i.e. the Act covers the distributors ability to backbill in cases of theft. However, a shipperless site is not caused by the customer (unless they fit their own meter which is then covered as theft) its caused by failure of industry parties...so they are also liable for taking a loss due to error.

Ofgem did instruct the market that they shouldn't back bill beyond 12 months. This was issued to suppliers as they are the industry party that produces bills to customers and doesn't need the Act cover for the theft scenario. So, a customer could argue that Ofgem's directive is actually valid to the scenario itself, not the expected parties involved in the deregulation model. Perhaps one day a case may arise?

Since shipperless sites are now extremely rare in elec due to the industry change, its an unknown but what I do know from experience is that I never heard of customers being billed for shipperless energy in elec when it used to be rife. It was too much of a problem and they sought to tighten up the industry instead. What happened to the loss? It obviously affected their charges for energy to suppliers by spreading it.

In terms of DNO rates, well, that's going to be far cheaper than a supplier would charge you since its their purchase price. But is it? Distributors all charge different rates to suppliers and they negotiate based in volume. So, how do we know that the distributor pricing would be fair? We don't. Chanz might know more here but I seem to recall some documents where Ofgem would have to approve this pricing to customers with it being outside the industry model.