EDF direct debit manipulation

victor2

brewerdave wrote: »

no supplied readings until a meter reader commeth

Should be emblazoned across all EDF contracts!

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

The numbers calculated by EDF are extraordinary.

I think you are commenting on Snowcat's numbers something I had intended a commentary on, so this is as good a point as any.

My own recent experience is that the Edf DD calculation is "arithmetically correct". Damning with faint praise BTW.

I'm not so sure that Snowcat's calculation wasn't also "arithmetically correct". What is distorting the calculation is the number of payments to the December review. Depending on exact dates that may have been 3 payments due, indeed it could have been only 2. What we have here is the same mechanism which (pre-Reset) resulted in E.ON's "sudden excessive hikes", a "short-year" calculation, something Edf could eliminate by operating a rolling 12 month calculation (as Scottish Power claim to use).

The obvious account management issue is why at 9 months was the payment not already adequate? I can't answer that but I'm guessing there had not been an earlier review, a downside of not providing readings.

Anyway where Edf needs to be challenged is why the projected consumption always seems to be increased over the previous 12 months actual and why. I think that is a much better challenge than the calculation because they may well be able to show the calculation is "artithmetically correct". OTOH explaining an increase in the face of meter readings which don't support an increase is rather more tricky. Weather? What weather and where?:D

In my case the Midata data has been all over the place but it is slowly converging to "correct". I *think* frequent (i.e monthly) readings may be having an effect. In fact my last statement showed lower projected consumption not evident from Midata. So the calculation may be "arithmetically correct" but the data used remains highly suspect.

During a complaint about Midata accuracy I was informed that in resolution an "unbilled reading" had been removed from my account. Midata then appeared to show a corresponding step change down. The explanation I was given was "regarding the predicted increase in your consumption being affected by an unbilled estimated reading. I am not referring to unbilled energy, I am referring to an estimated meter reading that as not been used for billing. This means that our system, has automatically placed an estimated meter reading but as it was not time for your bill, it has been placed on our billing system for reference only." Got that?:D

That may or may not be "true" but is "nonsense" - my account was fully billed to a recent reading - there was no unbilled energy. I think a "fiddle factor" was being described.

Anyway my advice is not to challenge the "arthimetic" but to formally challenge the provenance of the projected consumption and the rational for a 12 month projection being used for an impending fixed year calculation.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

I think you are commenting on Snowcat's numbers something I had intended a commentary on, so this is as good a point as any.


I'm not so sure that Snowcat's calculation wasn't also "arithmetically correct". What is distorting the calculation is the number of payments to the December review. Depending on exact dates that may have been 3 payments due, indeed it could have been only 2. What we have here is the same mechanism which (pre-Reset) resulted in E.ON's "sudden excessive hikes", a "short-year" calculation, something Edf could eliminate by operating a rolling 12 month calculation (as Scottish Power claim to use).

Yes I was commenting on snowcat's calculation. My reading is that snowcat has been told it is a 12 month forward looking calulation. Not two or three months and EDF said the reason for the increase is applying a standard tariff after December.

As I explained using rates which amplify the likely cost does not hold water.

Perhaps snowcat could clarify.

jalexa

backfoot wrote: »

Perhaps snowcat could clarify.

That would be ideal.

In the absence of Edf "final" written confirmation on the policy, who can say with certainty how the calculation should proceed.

The only thing I can say with certainty is that I have an email explanation dated little more than 2 months ago which states that only customer payments due to be received (and costs incurred) within the fixed year of the current "payment scheme" (to the next 'annual review' date) are included in the calculation.

Of course it was drafted at my insistence by an Adviser I spoke with so its provenance is uncertain and "Complaints" did not want to be bound by it, and it was "withdrawn" rather than replaced, so the jury remains out.

Terrylw1

Jalexa, they seem to implying that an estimated reading was created in error and because your billing window wasn't open, it stored in your consumption history.

So, it is considered valid for consumption checks and prediction. The same occurs where customers give readings inbetween billing windows as its always useful to use in validation and further estimation routines.

Why would a system create an estimated reading? Only when the billing window is open and no actual reading is received by the time it closes. Some systems auto estimate in the change of tenancy process where pending X days. Anything else is manual estimation.

So, perhaps its a system error? Billing systems do lots of weird things such as creating zero estimates for no apparent reason.

snowcat53

backfoot wrote: »

Yes I was commenting on snowcat's calculation. My reading is that snowcat has been told it is a 12 month forward looking calulation. Not two or three months and EDF said the reason for the increase is applying a standard tariff after December.

As I explained using rates which amplify the likely cost does not hold water.

Perhaps snowcat could clarify.

Ok will try. A bit short of time the weekend so apols if I have missed points in the helpful posts above.
The future cost came in the 'Annual statement 20sep2012 to 19 sep2013' on the bill, which gives last 12 m usage, next 12m estimated and estimated costs (based on current tariff). This was £1567
However the change in DD is not linked to this at all. It is on page 1 'Your payments are changing. -we've changed your monthly DD payment to £178' - and the explanation is 'We've just completed your latest review' but there is NO explanation or calculation for that figure.

So whether this amount is estimated to make the balance zero at 31 dec or is using standard tariff into 2013 I don't know without doing more sums (although advisor seemed to imply the latter) . However if it were just to end dec and is for just 2 payments that seems a justifiable process.

In any case this looks to me another breach of 27.14 in terms of explanation.

backfoot

snowcat53 wrote: »

In any case this looks to me another breach of 27.14 in terms of explanation.

It seems to be evidence of a complete breach and beyond the year of being a customer.

If you recall, their 'bogus' defence to me is that until the Annual statement is produced they are not obliged to lay out a DD calculation.

Here we are guessing at what their change is which results in a increase of £55 per month,not far off 50% when you are already in credit. To quote a friend that's a ' sudden excessive hike'.

Is there still any mileage in a complaint regarding what they have done (or not done) even though they have conceded the value to you?

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

In any case this looks to me another breach of 27.14 in terms of explanation.

I agree the annual statement + Page 1 notification of increase does not comply with SLC27.14.

Let me clarify that the email explanation I referred to in my last post was a bespoke calculation prepared for or by an Adviser. It was 'arithmetically correct' and I am satisfied it complied with SLC27.14. The customer contact which triggered the recalculation was a change of payment date which reduced the number of payments due by 1.

I objected on the technicality that I was not warned when I made the change that this would be a consequence of the change. "Complaints" upheld that on the basis that a payment date change should not have resulted in a recalculation. (Err....surely the system did it?)

My point is that it is "possible" to receive a SLC27.14 compliant explanation on request. Equally possible that was down to an individual Adviser who may have been "smarter" than average and who may or may not have right.

I still advocate the pragmatic approach of agreeing the correct payment over dispute on regulatory compliance, though the calculation of the "correct" payment does require a decision whether to apply a "payment scheme" year or a rolling year.

It is worth insisting on the bespoke calculation IMO customers are entitled to.

steve-L

victor2 wrote: »

It's a double edged sword though...
Just suppose every supplier has to charge a fixed standing charge for the privilege of having utilities delivered direct into your home, then a single rate for each kWh of energy you use.

They can do several but each is a different tariff.....

No discount schemes, as that will muddy the water.

Probably and to be honest the discount schemes tend to be the last 20 quid.... out of the overall bill..... if all the tariffs were just given plain and simple then that would all come out in the wash anyway as they actually competed on tariffs not fine print....

Electricity meters record kWh used but since gas meters don't record kWh, but volume of gas in cubic meters or hundreds of cubic feet, maybe they should charge by volume and have separate imperial and metric charges?

Nothing so complex needed, regardless of the meter they charge in energy used kWh so the tariff is in kWh. They can therefore switch the calorific value of the gas within limits as supply dictates.

Would please customers in Stornoway though, who have LPG piped, with about 3 times the amount of energy in it as the rest of the UK's supplies.

If everyone was quoted in kWh then all utilities compete in kWh.

There are two basic ways to do a tariff, standing change and then unit charge and tier-1/tier-2.
Everything else is just obfuscation of the actual costs.... however if they do want to make discounts they should first have to publish the actual tariff and then people can see it for themselves.

The other option is lock-in or not.... do you get a guaranteed price per kWh and how long for.

So far as I have seen the discounts don't seem to add up to much.... and each has then got a set of conditions that are long and complex.

The utilities companies seem to be trying to differentiate themselves not on actual costs but on discounts that 'sound better than they are'. The comparison websites just make this less transparent.... (I'm not blaming them)....

The result is that consumers cannot get the basic information they need in a simple way..... and hence the market competition is not about real prices but 'incentives' that actually are often worth very little... it seems it's become more of an art of getting a consumer to agree to a provider and tariff based on them missing the obvious behind the pages of conditions.

If building societies and banks can publish their basic rates why not utilities? In the end banks have to publish an APR for loans/mortgages .... why are utilities so different?

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

My mother's DD was put up from 125 to 180 in september despite being a little in credit.

Update:

I may have implied (or stated even) that "a little in credit" might not have not have been sufficient. I am on an April "payment scheme" year. One of the calculations I do is to compare level payments with seasonally weighted consumption (standard profile for gas). This indicates payment adequacy may require an account balance peaking at approximately 1.7 x monthly payment (for dual-fuel) in October.

I amended the table to check your December "payment scheme" year. I was quite surprised to see only a fairly modest September surplus is required of approximately 0.6 x monthly payment (for dual-fuel).

On that basis "a little in credit" may not be far wrong, certainly well within any "error" due to payment timing.