EDF direct debit manipulation

jalexa

Well well well, I have provided my monthly reading in an attempt to provoke a recalculation and have been rewarded with a 20% payment hike:( (equivalent to a 'payment scheme' year excess balance of 7.8% at next 'annual review' with no tariff change to consider).

Who would have thought Edf would be so stupid. Lots here apparently but I have faith that computer calculations are deterministic. Accordingly this time instead of first going for a reduction to the existing very carefully calculated amount and (generous to Edf) post reading account balance, this time its explanation time:D and thanks to backfoot and snowcat there is an Energy Ombudsman precedent, even if EO decisions don't create "precedent".

It is interesting that both the pre and post readings Midata cost projection (yes the action of a reading makes an immediate same day change) supports the previous amount.

This is going to be costly for Edf in one or more of time, money and reputation.

snowcat53

Thank you for making that choice to demand an explanation Jalexa. My EO case also gives a 'precedent' for getting this. It will be interesting to see how much effort and how many requests it takes to get something meaningful.

Indeed the computer calculations are deterministic but someone at edf chose to implement software which gives nonsensical results - either insufficient testing or hoping to get away with it. So to that extent yes I do think they are stupid!

Keep up the good work.

WestonDave

That I suspect is the crux of the problem - the computer is clearly taking data and using that to produce output, but no-one can fathom how it gets from one end of the process to the other. Its effectively become a "black box" in the system which does something but not something useful. The problem now is that people are demanding an explanation for a process only the computer "understands"

I can afford to laugh about this as the change in DD's doesn't significantly impact on my cashflow (I realise that over time its swings and roundabouts anyway as its the actual billing that dictates what I've spent), but for some the uplift will be trusted but put them into difficulties over food etc. For that reason I think its right to put EDF on the spot until they can either get their system to behave rationally, or they abandon it for something which produces more reliable results.

(Incidentally out of interest I had a nose at their accounts earlier - as at 31/12/11 they were sitting on around £4m of advance payments from customers - admittedly across their various countries of operation but that had gone up nearly 20% from the previous year. It will be interesting to see how much that changes again by the end of this year. Cynically I'm thinking that funding their nuclear building programme by "borrowing" from customers is going to be a lot cheaper than asking the bank!)

snowcat53

WestonDave wrote: »

Cynically I'm thinking that funding their nuclear building programme by "borrowing" from customers is going to be a lot cheaper than asking the bank!)

And I'm thinking that we must hope EDF can design nuclear power stations better than they can a billing system

4 million won't go far on that though.(it's actually hard to believe that it's so low -with millions of customers and maybe many a hundred quid extra in advance)

victor2

jalexa wrote: »

Well well well, I have provided my monthly reading in an attempt to provoke a recalculation and have been rewarded with a 20% payment hike:( (equivalent to a 'payment scheme' year excess balance of 7.8% at next 'annual review' with no tariff change to consider).

Who would have thought Edf would be so stupid. Lots here apparently but I have faith that computer calculations are deterministic. Accordingly this time instead of first going for a reduction to the existing very carefully calculated amount and (generous to Edf) post reading account balance, this time its explanation time:D and thanks to backfoot and snowcat there is an Energy Ombudsman precedent, even if EO decisions don't create "precedent".

It is interesting that both the pre and post readings Midata cost projection (yes the action of a reading makes an immediate same day change) supports the previous amount.

This is going to be costly for Edf in either or all of time, money and reputation.

That's reaffirmed my decision not to give them a reading tomorrow!
According to my annual rolling usage, I'm slightly underpaying them at the moment by about £10 a month, due mainly to the cold November we've had compared to last year.
Looks like it'll be worth me doing extensive before and after calculations when I next decide to give a reading. I'm almost curious to see what adjusted figure they come up with, but not just yet.

jalexa

victor2 wrote: »

That's reaffirmed my decision not to give them a reading tomorrow!

OK, now received my statement. I now know that it is not a 20% hike as I previously stated but a 43% hike for gas:eek:. How can that be the case when my 'payment year' gas consumption to date is 2% less than the projected consumption on which the previous monthly payment is based and my account post bill has a generous (to Edf) credit balance?

It is worth referrring to Standard Licence Condition 31.A...

(a) subject to paragraph 31.A.3, a comparison of the Domestic Customer’s
gas consumption for the period covered by the Bill or statement of account, with the Domestic customer’s gas consumption for the corresponding period in the previous year (for the purposes of this condition, the “corresponding period”);

The Edf statement complies with that requirement. The "corresponding period" does indeed show a marked increase, but the "corresponding period" in my case is one month. I theorise that Edf have extrapolated a single month in isolation as evidence of an increased trend but I say the reason for the increase is that the start of the heating season has differed and no conclusion can be drawn about future usage.

At this point the "don't provide meter reading" smugs:D must be feeling well smug. That's you Victor.

Of course my theory is probably bunkum. My "corresponding period" electricity is 30% down but surprise surprise no reduction in the electricity component of the monthly payment.:(

Anyway the 10 working day clock for a response has started. Time will tell. There must be an arithmetic reason but I will not accept that an explanation in accordance with the "corresponding period" theory is a reasonable assumption about 'payment year' projected cost when based on one month in isolation.

brewerdave

jalexa wrote: »

OK, now received my statement. I now know that it is not a 20% hike as I previously stated but a 43% hike for gas:eek:. How can that be the case when my 'payment year' gas consumption to date is 2% less than the projected consumption on which the previous monthly payment is based and my account post bill has a generous (to Edf) credit balance?
.....At this point the "don't provide meter reading" smugs:D must be feeling well smug. That's you Victor.

...looking back thru' my reams of bumph accumulated since I switched to EDF in July 2011 I queried a prediction of 13% increase in gas usage given to me this August.
I pointed out that I hadn't used that much gas in all the years that I had kept records at this house!! this was the email reply:-

"The usage forecast shown on your annual statement is based on several factors. The first is your properties AQ (annual quantity) figure obtained from the gas transporter, this is the gas transporters forecast based on past usage at the property. The other main factors are the consumption history we hold for your property and long range weather forecasts."


I didn't bother to go back to query it further because a manual recalculation of DD carried out and reported in the same email, gave me the ££s per month DD figure that I was looking for,based on my expected consumpton figures:)




Consider me a member of the EDF Smug club too:rotfl:

victor2

Corresponding periods eh. Wonder how long it'll be before their "system" decides that June and January are corresponding periods!
It beats me how I've been a customer of theirs for over 18 months and throughout that time, the ever helpful customer service staff have acknowledged they have a faulty system for calculating direct debits. The last one I spoke to said it will be fixed in the New Year. Of course I didn't ask which New Year. :rotfl:

Been looking at my account balance over the last 12 months of my now expired fixed rate tariff. For 4 months I had a negative account balance, so I suppose since 8 were in credit, it was slightly in EDF's favour.
As I'm still paying the same amount, but rates have increased with the Blue +Price Promise tariff, I'm now effectively shifting the curve a little in my favour.
Curiously, the curve passed through the zero mark last May, which is my review date (could argue it was spot on using my calculated DD amount rather than EDF's). The way it's tracking now though, with the last few months significantly cooler than the same time last year, I'll be in a debit balance come May.

I'll just keep on being smug for now.

Buzby

But why should anyone take with any confidence the figures they use to 'estimate' consumption? With each bill I get an updated Annual Statement (so it's really a quarterly statement guesstimating annual consumption) and it swings round wildly depending in the quarter just gone.

Since I don't trust anyone with a DD, the paperwork is invariably a work of fiction and I can safely ignore it, with the exception of the actual meter reads. The danger of course is the burden shifts as instead of billing their estimate of consumption for that quarter if there has been no meter reading taken or provided, they will bill based on their annual review figure as if it were fact and charge a considerably higher amount. Pay by DD, and your money disappears.

Clearly, the consumer will always be on the back foot, having to wade through a fairy-tale of inappropriate figures, but only by paying for the consumption actually used each quarter protects you from this manipulation.

victor2

Buzby wrote: »

But why should anyone take with any confidence the figures they use to 'estimate' consumption? With each bill I get an updated Annual Statement (so it's really a quarterly statement guesstimating annual consumption) and it swings round wildly depending in the quarter just gone.

The points being made are that it is a forecast and should be based on the previous 12 month's usage, which the supplier has. There is no guesstimating of annual consumption required, as it's historic fact.
So, unless they can see another ice age coming next year, you would expect it to be not unlike the previous year.

To get some tariffs, you have to commit to paying by DD, for which the basic principle of spreading your annual cost evenly over 12 months should apply.
Of course there will be significant changes in some customer's usage, but for the majority who go on living their life the way they have the previous year, they shouldn't be subjected to large increases in usage, which is what EDF's system invariably does.