EDF direct debit manipulation

missile

I read this post with interest as I recently switched from BG to EDF.

I must say my experience has been possitive. Their estimate of my dual fuel useage is very close to my comsumption. EDF website is easy to access, bills are straight forward and transparent. More concise and much simpler to understand than those dreadful multi page bills I had previously from BG.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

Well I think that is a nonsense explanation because there appears to be a monthly payment missing whether it be the increased payment of £178 or the prior or post review payment amount.

The "£45 payment" was prior to the interim review. Is it (or not) included in the "£1125" stated by Edf as "payments received"?

In an earlier post, schrodie (#232) posted that "additional payments" were not included in Edf calculations. Maybe on the right lines there?

I'm afraid I do consider you got an explanation, just the usual attempt to invent an answer to fit.

The '£45 payment' is NOT included in the 1125 (this is 9 payments of 125). They should also have known the warm home amount would be credited as it was in Dec 2011(again edf, but a little less then).

But the main points I see are 1) this justification or explanation (such as it is) was not offered at the time and has taken 6 weeks and multiple requests and escalations to obtain, and 2) there was no basis under their published policy to change the DD based on the projected position at the annual review

BTW did you mean to say you did not consider I got an explanation?

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

BTW did you mean to say you did not consider I got an explanation?

Yes, but there are some sematics at work.

What I intended to "imply", in the context of "manipulation" and calculation by an automated system, was that you have not been provided with the calculation made by the automated system.

I say that because it seems to me that there is a missing monthly payment in the "manual" explanation.

[£523.16
+£958.86
-£1125
-£45
-£130
-£178 (the 11th payment)
=£4]

What happened to the 12th payment? Alternatively with 12 payments the 'annual review' should have resulted in an approx £172 credit balance with reduced monthly payments going forward.

Is it correct that the payments going forward are "£130" and not "£123" or lower? Was there a tariff increase or other projected cost increase between the interim and 'annual' reviews? What was the annual cost projection on the review statement?

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

I say that because it seems to me that there is a missing monthly payment in the "manual" explanation.
amended to actual
[£523.16
+£958.86
-£1125 (payments 1-9)
-125 late sept |(after review but too soon to put up)
-£178 late oct (the increased 11th payment)
-130 late nov (the decreased again 12th payment)
-£45 fuel support
-£130 warm home
=- £251.28] (projected credit) including warm home discount (or -121.28 excluding this)

What happened to the 12th payment? Alternatively with 12 payments the 'annual review' should have resulted in an approx £172 credit balance with reduced monthly payments going forward.

Is it correct that the payments going forward are "£130" and not "£123" or lower? Was there a tariff increase or other projected cost increase between the interim and 'annual' reviews? What was the annual cost projection on the review statement?

You are absolutely right Jalexa - I had completely missed this, they have indeed anticipated only 11 DD payments instead of 12. This was a fixed tariff (from mid Dec 2011 to end Dec 2012) so no change in tariff and no change in usage pattern.

Therefore at the interim review in sept, had the DD payments remained at 125 the total received at the annual review would have been 1545 excluding the warmhome/payment, or 1675 inc. Taking off their anticipated annual bill of 1482 this would then have led to a credit balance of £63 exc or 193 inc.

In other words any DD change made in sept should have been DOWN not up. This will be made clear to them!
Again many thanks for pointing this out.

In response to your other question their sept 'annual statement' estimated cost for 12-13 as £1567 (includes DD /dual fuel but excluding warmhome etc), This again bears no clear relation to the other figures given

Finally they have left the DD at130 despite now being on a dearer tariff and this has clearly not been considered! However this is now academic because we are moving to a new supplier (hooray!)

backfoot

Hi Snowcat,

Just catching up with the thread. Due to my own experience of EDF and DD's, I am probably more focused on the overall process than the detail of everyone's calculation.

From what I can see, you identified in post 1, that the EDF calculation was flawed and it has taken a ridiculous amount of time for an explanation to have finally been provided. That is Stage 1 which , in my view EDf or any supplier, should have at their fingertips. It is a computer calculation of what they have presented to you as the change.

Stage 2 is testing whether that calculation stacks up. Part of that is whether the annual estimate is robust and whether all the other variables are in line with the scheme as described.

It seems to me that EDF have an annual review date which they aim to balance to zero. Not unreasonable, but neither is it the best scheme imho. Unfortunately it can give rise to fluctuating DD's and too many changes because each variable can unduly influence the calculation.

Most people see this when they input frequent meter readings.. In your case, the other posters have identified that a payment month variable has been missed. In order to give you an explanation,they have contrived it rather than provide the computer calculation. I suspect, that it is the Warm Home dicount and the Fuel support credits which may have been missed. Whichever way, the calculation doesn't stack up and hence the overcharge over the remaining recovery period.

So where to go now. For me, I would want to challenge them further and assert that the calculation was flawed and hence your rightful complaint. I would also want state that it shouldn't have taken x months to provide an answer to a simple enquiry. You should request a gesture of goodwill relating to the error and more importantly the poor complaint handling.

£75 should do it. Good luck.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

In order to give you an explanation,they have contrived it rather than provide the computer calculation. I suspect, that it is the Warm Home discount and the Fuel support credits which may have been missed...

That was what I had tried and possibly failed to explain to Snowcat.

I have previously referred to shrodies's revelation (post #232) that extra payments were not counted. In Snowcat's example the Warm Home discount had not yet been earned, the fuel support element had already been credited (but not counted in the Edf recalculation). [IMV it is correct not to anticipate future payments but wrong not to include payments already credited].

Done some work on this at the weekend. I have to slightly amend my analysis of Snowcat's calculation. On the occasion of the 'interim review' it was "arithmetically correct" subject to the fuel support credit not being counted. The issue is whether or not the fuel support credit has been "missed" as a result of Snowcat's suggestion of "intent or incompetence".

I revisted my own recent recalculations to fully incorporate shrodie's revelation as implicitly confirmed by Snowcat. My account has one or more ex-gratia credits, one or more requested refunds and one or more extra payments. The statement 'account balance' is arithmetically correct for the most recent customer read and (unlike Snowcat's example) there is a sufficiently adequate credit balance to give every expectation of an 'annual review' balance with no payment change. Why therefore did Edf think a 20% payment increase was required? Why has it taken Edf 5 weeks and 3 or 4 complaint iterations to as yet fail to explain? I'll answer that, it is "impossible" to answer in my case without giving the game away or admitting systemic error, to which my follow-up questions would be for how long and what mitigations are in place.

If I exclude all the "non-regular" payments and use the Statement page 5 projected cost, on the two most recent calculations I can produce a recalculation which agrees with Edf's to the nearest £. I hereby claim the Turing prize for myself and schrodie for computational services to Edf customers.

When Snowcat started this thread the question posed was one of "manipulation" and later whether through "intent or incompetence". I don't know the answer. Not many customers will have a similar payment record to mine, but remember the account balance is always correct.

One category of customer however is directly affected by a failure to count extra payments made - the most needy customers - who have relied on fuel credits and/or Warm Home discounts. They have been discriminated against by an Edf re-calculation process which can "manipulate upwards" the monthly payment.

Now lets see Ofgem not take a view on that.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

Done some work on this at the weekend. I have to slightly amend my analysis of Snowcat's calculation. On the occasion of the 'interim review' it was "arithmetically correct" subject to the fuel support credit not being counted..

No, I think you were right first time - it was not arithmetically correct at the sept review because (as you said) they only counted 11 of the 12 DD payments, and anticipated only 2 more when should have been 3. Counting all 12 (at 125) and including the £45 fuel support payment, but excluding the £130 warmhome payment, there was a projected credit balance of £63 at annual review.

(Or have I missed something??)

jalexa wrote: »

One category of customer however is directly affected by a failure to count extra payments made - the most needy customers - who have relied on fuel credits and/or Warm Home discounts. They have been discriminated against by an Edf re-calculation process which can "manipulate upwards" the monthly payment.

Now lets see Ofgem not take a view on that. .

Spot on. Are they looking at this?
Look forward to hearing the outcome of your query.

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

No, I think you were right first time - it was not arithmetically correct at the sept review...

OK, trying again...

[£523.16
+£958.86
-£1125
=£357.02
/2 (the number of remaining payments)
=£178.51:T
]

First time round I was intent on debunking the Edf "imaginator's" explanation and didn't calculate as I'd intended. Sorry.

Also probably I should have put you up for a share of the Turing prize.:D

IMO the 'annual review' calculation should be the 'annual review' statement page 5 (or equivalent) projected cost less the 'annual review' statement credit balance all divided by 12.

Need the projected cost to compute that.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

OK, trying again...

[£523.16
+£958.86
-£1125
=£357.02
/2 (the number of remaining payments)
=£178.51:T
]

But the number of remaining payments=3 !! (end sept, oct, nov) so
357 / 3= 119 :j

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

But the number of remaining payments=3 !! (end sept, oct, nov) so
357 / 3= 119 :j

You're right. (1125/125=9). I missed that. So a case of two missing payments, not one.:rotfl: It looks like the Edf "imaginator" thought they were being "smart" but have seriously shot themselves in the foot and the automated system has fouled up the number of future payments. Could that be a result of the actual date of the 'annual review' in relation to the payment date? (I adjusted my payment date to avoid any ambiguity on that).

One other thing - this might be important - did the "£523.16 + £958.86" come from the "projected cost" amount at Page 5 of the 'interim review' statement?

If so then astonishingly the submitted readings are not used directly to affect the monthly payment - even though the readings are the excuse for the recalculation - but serve only to refine the "previous 12 months consumption" (on which regulations require the projected future cost to be directly reflective of).

If so, IMO further technical breaches of SLC27.14-16.