Inducements to Stay - One for the Reps

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

Respectful as I am of your contributions I'm struggling with this one. I haven't intentionally selectively quoted you but I fear you are confusing objection mechanism with the requirements of the SLC. I can see I may have unintentionally misled the poster that "too late to cancel" meant too late for the current supplier to object. Appologies. But your quote above I believe not to be clear about the SLC either.

The valid objection grounds are clearly stated in SLC14.4 Is there an implication here that the current supplier intends to induce the customer to deny a switch under SLC14.4(c)? I cannot see any other grounds where the supplier requires objection consent by the customer. I would consider that a fraudulent abuse of process but maybe that is what you intended to convey in your final sentence.

IMO we need unequivocal condemnation of the supplier conduct described by the OP. And unequivocal clarification by the Scottish Power rep, (or failing that Timmy85).

If the current supplier catches the customer between the notification of switch from the new supplier and the actual switch date, which has at least 5 working days for the notice period plus any processing days, it would allow the current supplier to object.

The proposed supplier doesn't know why they object unless someone triggers an investigation.

So, if the customer is taken out of the equation by thinking they are better of staying, the new supplier has no reason to go further other than contact with the customer.

I wonder what the new supplier will do if they are find out its due to retention?

There is nothing in the SLC that allows this unless its an ET in the making.

It also avoids early termination charges.

I'm wondering if they are abusing the objection process.

You didn't misadvise the poster, your advice as ever was sound. I just spotted the comment about still having the current supplier so I knew the objection window could be open. It could be closed hence they have been accepted to switch, as you advised.

jalexa

Terrylw1 wrote: »

The proposed supplier doesn't know why they object unless someone triggers an investigation.

Just when I thought the current supplier didn't need to inform the proposed supplier of the exact objection reason, something I can imagine Data Protection reasons for (this customer is a right bad payer), I noticed SLC14.10 is directly relevant to a switch objected to at the customer's request in accordance with 14.4(c).

So very dangerous territory for the current supplier.

ollski

I'm quite impressed that we are now trying to batter companies for lower prices.

backfoot

ollski wrote: »

I'm quite impressed that we are now trying to batter companies for lower prices.

Batter, barter or both.:rotfl:

Have you thought it through?

Scottish_Power

Hi folks I am waiting a response on this and will post as soon as I can. Thanks David

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

Just when I thought the current supplier didn't need to inform the proposed supplier of the exact objection reason, something I can imagine Data Protection reasons for (this customer is a right bad payer), I noticed SLC14.10 is directly relevant to a switch objected to at the customer's request in accordance with 14.4(c).

So very dangerous territory for the current supplier.

Ah, but if you look at the Data Transfer Catalogue (DTC) for elec you would see that the objection reason is a data item called Instruction Type. This is a list of predefined terms and is used for lots of different processes. The only one they can select is generic and meaningless.

So, the current supplier sends this to the distributor and they send a different data flow which includes the same Instruction Type.

Not sure on gas but since its all data flows and data items, many of which are predefined lists, I doubt its different.

TIMMY85

jalexa wrote: »

Respectful as I am of your contributions I'm struggling with this one. I haven't intentionally selectively quoted you but I fear you are confusing objection mechanism with the requirements of the SLC. I can see I may have unintentionally misled the poster that "too late to cancel" meant too late for the current supplier to object. Apologies. But your quote above I believe not to be clear about the SLC either.

The valid objection grounds are clearly stated in SLC14.4 Is there an implication here that the current supplier intends to induce the customer to deny a switch under SLC14.4(c)? I cannot see any other grounds where the supplier requires objection consent by the customer. I would consider that a fraudulent abuse of process but maybe that is what you intended to convey in your final sentence.

IMO we need unequivocal condemnation of the supplier conduct described by the OP. And unequivocal clarification by the Scottish Gas rep, (or failing that Timmy85).

I do not work on outbound sales or 'winback' BUT...

My understanding is that BG are notified of the switch after the cool off period has passed. This will then trigger a 'sorry you are leaving us' letter/email asking the customer to call. It is also likely that the customer will be contacted by phone.

If BG can speak to the customer the agent will try to winback the customer and may offer a credit after a period of time if the customer returns. This would then be confirmed in writing/email and may mean the customer has to remain on the tariff they sign up for, this could be standard, fixed price etc...

The winback agent would not be raising an objection to prevent the supply leaving BG. I can say this rather confidently as their role is essentialy sales - an objection being raised is not a sale.

I would hazard a guess that the offers of credit are targeted at customers BG makes most from - A few years ago my wife signed up for M&S Energy (back with BG now) and I was not called.

I honestly do not see the issue with this on a money saving site, it is no different to me calling Sky and saying I want to cancel in the hope they halve my bill.

If a customer is looking to change from BG to EDF and they can save £50 per year by doing so, then BG call and offer £200 to switch back then it is a no brainer. How is it any different to the much given advice of 'use a comparison site then switch using a cashback site'? The cashback is paid by the supplier to the cashback site and then the customer gets some - in the above scenario the customer gets the full lot applied to their energy bill.If the DD has been set correctly to cover consumption they can then get a refund...

If I am mis-understanding the concern backfoot please let me know. I totally got the issue about cancellation fees on variable tariffs but am not understanding where you would be taking this.

I will also make clear (my signature is below but to stress the point) I am not an official rep and my thoughts are my own and do not reflect the position of Centrica or British Gas on this issue (or any other issue for that matter!:T)

backfoot

TIMMY85 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that the offers of credit are targeted at customers BG makes most from - A few years ago my wife signed up for M&S Energy (back with BG now) and I was not called.

I honestly do not see the issue with this on a money saving site, it is no different to me calling Sky and saying I want to cancel in the hope they halve my bill.

If a customer is looking to change from BG to EDF and they can save £50 per year by doing so, then BG call and offer £200 to switch back then it is a no brainer. How is it any different to the much given advice of 'use a comparison site then switch using a cashback site'? The cashback is paid by the supplier to the cashback site and then the customer gets some - in the above scenario the customer gets the full lot applied to their energy bill.If the DD has been set correctly to cover consumption they can then get a refund...

If I am mis-understanding the concern backfoot please let me know. I totally got the issue about cancellation fees on variable tariffs but am not understanding where you would be taking this.

Fundamentally, I don't want to see the Industry allowed to be run like premium rate TV channels or mobile phone packages. They are luxury non essential purchases.

I already object to the huge discriminatory pricing that allows the uninformed, non IT literate and generally poor customers to already subsidise the savvy. It has no place in energy imho.

Reacting only when customers are already switching smacks of stifling competition,not encouraging it. It is an underhand tactic designed to catch out the uninformed. It leads to mis-selling as it isn't an actual tariff but a discriminatory inducement. It sounds attractive at the time to an under pressure customer, akin to the cold callers who are no longer allowed to harass us.

I personally don't believe these inducements form part of a valid energy contract or are properly recorded or produce real customer savings over the period. No cooling off periods are involved.

At best they are deferred conditional offers hidden away to save the real competitive pressures of offering favourable prices up front. If this was a valid tactic then all the Suppliers would be indulging in a like for like free for all and completed switching would fall to all time low levels.

I can't believe deregulation was intended this way with discriminatory price drops for those who intend to switch.

Mr.Bentley is making an average £50 per customer, so if he offers £200 he is making a loss of £150. Where is he going to recover this from? He robs Peter to pay Paul and recovers it by general price rises. Once again the non savvy pay the price.

I have again asked Ofgem, for the third time, what the rules on this area are and what their response to it is. So far no response.

davidgmmafan

I suspect the answer would be something like these inducements are only offered to people on the standard tariff which usually isn't the cheapest. However in this new world of 'simplified' tariffs that doesn't stack up anymore.

My own concern about this sort of thing (which seems to crop up a lot less recently) is to do with bungling retentions agents promising a certain payment per month based on discounts which unravels in 6-12 months time when the customer gets an accurate bill...

That being said I really don't see a way for companies to promote new deals to existing customers. Are there any examples where this happens in other businesses?

I'm not saying its right just trying to look at if from their point of view. I can see why companies have retentions teams, I can't see why (just from a numbers point of view) they would have a sort of pre retentions pro actively contacting existing customers to charge them less.

I know that is what customers want here an elsewhere but why would a company do that? There would be some benefit in terms of costing less to retain customers, but the overheads would outweigh that I would guess.

Terrylw1

TIMMY85 wrote: »

I do not work on outbound sales or 'winback' BUT...

My understanding is that BG are notified of the switch after the cool off period has passed. This will then trigger a 'sorry you are leaving us' letter/email asking the customer to call. It is also likely that the customer will be contacted by phone.

If BG can speak to the customer the agent will try to winback the customer and may offer a credit after a period of time if the customer returns. This would then be confirmed in writing/email and may mean the customer has to remain on the tariff they sign up for, this could be standard, fixed price etc...

The winback agent would not be raising an objection to prevent the supply leaving BG. I can say this rather confidently as their role is essentialy sales - an objection being raised is not a sale.

I would hazard a guess that the offers of credit are targeted at customers BG makes most from - A few years ago my wife signed up for M&S Energy (back with BG now) and I was not called.

I honestly do not see the issue with this on a money saving site, it is no different to me calling Sky and saying I want to cancel in the hope they halve my bill.

If a customer is looking to change from BG to EDF and they can save £50 per year by doing so, then BG call and offer £200 to switch back then it is a no brainer. How is it any different to the much given advice of 'use a comparison site then switch using a cashback site'? The cashback is paid by the supplier to the cashback site and then the customer gets some - in the above scenario the customer gets the full lot applied to their energy bill.If the DD has been set correctly to cover consumption they can then get a refund...

If I am mis-understanding the concern backfoot please let me know. I totally got the issue about cancellation fees on variable tariffs but am not understanding where you would be taking this.

I will also make clear (my signature is below but to stress the point) I am not an official rep and my thoughts are my own and do not reflect the position of Centrica or British Gas on this issue (or any other issue for that matter!:T)

They receive notification of the proposed switch date and the industry entity applying.

You can't state that objection processes are not being abused because a change of supply team is separate to retentions teams. If I wanted to use this method I would just have to create a link between the 2 and the SLA. Its not much of a process to create.

I appreciate you are not aware of it, which is what I take your comment to mean, but its easy for a supplier to do it if they wanted so its still a possibility.

An issue I have is that Bgas attach a higher value to Winbacks that new business and loyal customers. The Winbacks are getting £200 on top of their tariff whereas the others aren't.

That's not fair. That discrimination and would have been a failure of SLC25A until Ofgem removed it at the end of July for some reason.