EDF direct debit manipulation

backfoot

Stage 1 is finding out what the KWh values they have used and the basic calculation. For example, there is some evidence that EDf are not using credit balances. Are they using a 12 month forward estimate or something else?

Stage 2 is finding out the algorithm used to derive estimated consumption.

I think a customer is entitled to ask for both details. If you are a customer of EDF ask them for stage 2. I have waited for nine months for stage 1 and doubt it will ever arrive.:rotfl:

You have made assumptions/allegations that Suppliers overestimate because they want to benefit from DD's. In EDF's case I would hazard a guess it is more of a botched system specification.

Other Suppliers, like Eon manipulated and forced customers to a zero spring balance irrespective of their start date. Eventually they conceded that was unfair.

steve-L

backfoot wrote: »

Stage 1 is finding out what the KWh values they have used and the basic calculation. For example, there is some evidence that EDf are not using credit balances. Are they using a 12 month forward estimate or something else?

Stage 2 is finding out the algorithm used to derive estimated consumption.

I think a customer is entitled to ask for both details. If you are a customer of EDF ask them for stage 2. I have waited for nine months for stage 1 and doubt it will ever arrive.:rotfl:

You have made assumptions/allegations that Suppliers overestimate because they want to benefit from DD's. In EDF's case I would hazard a guess it is more of a botched system specification.

Other Suppliers, like Eon manipulated and forced customers to a zero spring balance irrespective of their start date. Eventually they conceded that was unfair.

Ignore the DD for now......
The assumptions are:
That its a business and they want to make a profit out of the majority of customers.
That borrowing money costs more than having it in the bank.
That probably more than 50% of customers switch to a smoothed tariff in preparation for the winter months higher bills
That some people will not pay and they need to recover that cost

That a significant proportion of customers are either new (as they switched) or new because they moved.

(Personally, I have not lived anywhere for longer than 2 years over the last however many.... and many places only one. )

That a significant number of customers regardless will be trying to save energy over 'last year' and given the price increase would rather save on use (kWh) where possible.

So those are assumptions.....

The DD issue is it is tied into PREDICTED use..... it can NEVER actually be spot on.... even the best prediction has to be plus or minus.
Naturally the utility companies prefer a plus to minus!

In order to get us to switch they make the DD seem cheaper....
I remain unconvinced how much this could really save a company in transaction fees. I'm not claiming it's ZERO ... just for a £1000/yr bill its not that significant over paying at a PO or bank...

If they reduce the kWh rate for paying by DD then they are going to want to make that up elsewhere.....

Now my point is that so long as they only show half the calculation (and yes some companies seem to want to hide that half as well) they can just hide this in the secret half.

You personally have records going back several years .... for many that is not an option. I don't know the numbers .... but between people who have switched and stayed put and people who have moved in the last 2 years I suspect its not insignificant!

Out of every move in the last few years I have yet to have a estimated consumption within 10% of the actual and from memory some of these would have been over 50% off predicted. (This is just thinking back, I'm not actually checking though I have the figures going back....) I know this because each time I have had to make corrections by reading the actual meter and then actually having quite a struggle to get them to actually acknowledge their predicted use was not correct!

Until the WHOLE calculation is transparent and challengeable they can just hide the manipulation in the other (hidden) half of the equation....

jalexa

steve-L wrote: »

However the way they calculate your total estimated use is the basis for everything. This is the part I don't see any energy supplier actually doing???

Is your use of "???" a challenge to disprove your assertion?

Backfoot cited an example (Scottish Power) of a "rolling 12 month" calculation. That doesn't require the use of any seasonal fiddle factors.

Previously, the E.ON twitter table and currently OVO, on their website, use (for gas) the industry "Standard" profile to explain seasonal factors.

This thread is about alleged Edf direct debit manipulation. I have "proof" of systemic manipulation in my particular circumstances of a short billing period. I do not yet have explicit evidence of the mechanism (or mechanisms even???). Cryptic eh?

At this point I can update the thread that Edf (at a lowly Customer Service level) have confirmed the projected consumption "basis" is the previous 12 months actual or estimated consumption given (accurately) both on the statement and also on Mydata. The CS staff have been unable or unwilling to explain a payment "hike" in the face of a fairly generous credit balance which I can demonstrate shows seasonal adequacy in accordance with the Standard profile.

Accordingly the "failure to explain" issue is now a Complaint.

backfoot

steve,

The thread is totally about transparency as was my EDF fail Ofgem rules thread.

I personally think a lot of your analysis overstates the impact of any manipulation to the Supplier due to very low interest rates, although I gladly invite you to obtain evidence. The impact on the customer is greater due to available cash flow rather than interest loss.

The Forum proved Eon had manipulated the system and we eventually got Ofgem on their case.

Who is your Supplier? Ask them for their detailed calculation.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

At this point I can update the thread that Edf (at a lowly Customer Service level) have confirmed the projected consumption "basis" is the previous 12 months actual or estimated consumption given (accurately) both on the statement and also on Mydata. The CS staff have been unable or unwilling to explain a payment "hike" in the face of a fairly generous credit balance which I can demonstrate shows seasonal adequacy in accordance with the Standard profile.

Accordingly the "failure to explain" issue is now a Complaint.

Many thanks Jalexa. One would have expected that to be so (as they are the only figures given on the bill ) but is useful to have it confirmed. SO now we need the explanation of how they go from there to the DD

Quick update on my mother's case - no response yet to complaint, but I entered meter readings yesterday, and the instant online balance shows still £180+ in credit, suggesting that their DD hike was not necessary. Will know more when the bill is generated (and no doubt a new DD as well!!)

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

This thread is about alleged Edf direct debit manipulation. I have "proof" of systemic manipulation in my particular circumstances of a short billing period. I do not yet have explicit evidence of the mechanism (or mechanisms even???).

Can you expand on this terminology please? Systemic for all customers?

WestonDave

Steve - I appreciate what you are saying and didn't object to their initial "new customer" calculations precisely because I understand that they had nothing to go on. My problem at present is that I've been with them for 18 months and they are now predicting massively more consumption than I've demonstrated use of in the last 18 months. Similarly I (although others differ) don't object to a reasonable margin of error in their favour (as I'd rather be sure I'm paying it all than end up with a balance to pay), but 40% increase in predicted consumption is taking the proverbial! Obviously its in their interests to get as good a position for themselves as they can, but its also in my interests to stop that getting out of hand and when it does we will cross swords. If its systematic as a number of postings on here suggest then it should be a regulatory matter - whether its deliberate or just a serendipitous side effect of a malfunctioning computer system.

Beyond that if their obligations are to supply a calculation at least on request, they can flippin well do it - not least because they've used their "benefit of the doubt" goodwill up with other screw ups. The fact that a month after asking they still can't either work out how to do it or be bothered to do it speaks volumes for their attitude to their obligations and customer service.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Can you expand on this terminology please? Systemic for all customers?

I tried to explain this in an earlier post. (Edit #117)

The "short billing period" in my case is one month. Regarding regulatory requirement for billing (entirely separate from DD calculation) the Edf bill complies with the regulatory requirement to compare the billing period consumption with the same period last year, the 'corresponding period'. As it happens this shows an increase. I do not accept the comparison (in isolation) is evidence of a general increase. IMO it is reflective of the heating season being advanced by about 3 weeks compared with last year.

Give that my bill was automatically produced by the billing system I speculate there could be a systemic issue for all customers where the 'corresponding period' in isolation is a flawed comparison. Since my review year to billing date seasonally weighted consumption is currently 6% below the (agreed) projected consumption, in the absence of an Edf explanation I can only look for reasons that "fit".

backfoot

So they have inflated the whole years gas consumption by a factor representing the increase over one month and ignored the previous 11 months. ?

If that's what they have done no wonder we can't get past stage 1 of the calculation. :rotfl:Then they may ignore any credit balances.

It must be the french way of doing things.....m...de.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Then they may ignore any credit balances.

In answer to your question, yes.

That is an interesting quote. I believe they ignored my credit balance, certainly they had two opportunities to explain. OTOH both Victor and Brewerdave have given (different) credit balance explanations. So who knows.

To add to a previous post, I (cryptically) suggested there might be more than one "manipulation". The dual fuel single bill treatment provides an opportunity for obfuscation. In isolation I should have been accorded a reduction in the electricity component. Strangely it didn't change.

I asked about the fuel breakdown and was informed that "Edf doesn't provide a breakdown" for duel fuel. I don't know if that is policy but I quote how a particular CSR answered.