EDF direct debit manipulation

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

It is clear to us here the computer software they use to recalculate DD payments has gross systematic errors...

FWIW, in my experience the computer software is "consistent" and returns a monthly payment consistent (to the £ rounded down) when any start of year credit balance and all non direct-debit (actual) credits from all sources are ignored.:( At this stage I cannot tell whether that is latent systemic error or is an intended business process. I have however been informed by the CS Director's team that there is no systemic error behind my disputed calculation. Bizarrely refunds also appear to be ignored.:(:(

..and is unjustifiably raising DDs for hundreds of thousands of their customers. This penalises the most vulnerable customers who end up paying more in advance than they need to.

Indeed. That is an outcome of the calculation process. Further, with the October 2012 Ofgem information sheet update http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/direct_debit_leaflet_oct_2012_WEB.pdf, the start of year credit balance to be ignored in the calculation going forward has increased from £150 to "£150 per fuel".:eek:

I do have one remarkable thing to report. On the occasion of the most recent statement the concurrent Midata cost projection is exactly right (to the penny):T and now agrees with the Statement statutory cost projection. Formerly the consumption agreed but the Midata cost was "nonsense". I cannot say whether there has been a software update or tariff data has been corrected.

Also I now have an accepted Energy Ombudsman case regarding disputed calculation.

I told them I was considering raising this issue with Ofgem...

Regarding Ofgem referral I would very much appreciate confirmation of dates that Ofgem has previously been made aware of consumer concerns regarding Edf Energy SLC27.14 alleged non-compliance and/or payment calculation concerns.

backfoot

jalexa wrote: »

Regarding Ofgem referral I would very much appreciate confirmation of dates that Ofgem has previously been made aware of consumer concerns regarding Edf Energy SLC27.14 alleged non-compliance and/or payment calculation concerns.

I wrote a detailed letter to Ofgem Consumer Affairs on 13/4/12.

This followed a lot of correspondence with the same offices concerning Eon.

snowcat53

EDF have come back to me again - it's all down to one silly billy advisor apparently. absolutely nothing to do with their systems or software....
I'm leaving it at that now. Both my mum and I have waved farewell to EDF.

Now what's all this about Ovo DD manipulation?.

---

I can confirm Mrs X’s Direct Debit was increased to £178 due to an error previously made by one of my colleagues. As Mrs X pays by Monthly Direct Debit, we complete a review once a year to ensure her payments are in line with her consumption. Prior to the review that took place in September 2012, our records show her payments were last reviewed on 5 December 2011 and were based on estimated meter readings. We were then provided with accurate readings on 16 December 2011 and the original bill was cancelled and a new bill was produced. However, when my colleague rebilled the account, this was not completed correctly and this caused an error on the Direct Debit review in September 2012.

This error should not have happened, and I sincerely apologise it has. I have personally provided feedback to the advisor concerned highlighting the error that has been made, and I can assure you the relevant training will be passed to the advisor concerned to prevent this happening again.

I fully appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding the way we calculate our customers Direct Debit reviews, and I can assure you it was a human error which caused the review to be incorrect, and was not a system error.

brewerdave

snowcat53 wrote: »

EDF have come back to me again - it's all down to one silly billy advisor apparently. absolutely nothing to do with their systems or software....

"I can confirm Mrs X’s Direct Debit was increased to £178 due to an error previously made by one of my colleagues. As Mrs X pays by Monthly Direct Debit, we complete a review once a year to ensure her payments are in line with her consumption. Prior to the review that took place in September 2012, our records show her payments were last reviewed on 5 December 2011 and were based on estimated meter readings. We were then provided with accurate readings on 16 December 2011 and the original bill was cancelled and a new bill was produced. However, when my colleague rebilled the account, this was not completed correctly and this caused an error on the Direct Debit review in September 2012.

This error should not have happened, and I sincerely apologise it has. I have personally provided feedback to the advisor concerned highlighting the error that has been made, and I can assure you the relevant training will be passed to the advisor concerned to prevent this happening again.

I fully appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding the way we calculate our customers Direct Debit reviews, and I can assure you it was a human error which caused the review to be incorrect, and was not a system error. "

:rotfl::rotfl:-couldn't make it up, could you??

jalexa

brewerdave wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:-couldn't make it up, could you??

Edf can certainly make it up.:D

Anyway won't wash in my case, the recalculation events are exclusively actual customer reads and scheduled reviews.

This has been an excellent focused thread. The issue I think has come full circle from previous Edf direct debit threads. The fundamental issue is SLC27.14 compliance.

27.14 The licensee must provide to each such Domestic Customer an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined.

Whatever the regulatory intent other suppliers have accepted here it deserves an arithmetic explanation on request. We don't (yet) know what Ofgem thinks (of their own regulation).:(

Surely it cannot mean any of no explanation within an 8 week complaint timeframe, an Energy Ombudsman referral, several contradictory explanations or explanations riddled with logical, arithmetic and basic accountancy errors.

It surely cannot mean incompetent staff (and incompetent supervisory oversight) defining their organisation's regulatory compliance.

Whatever it means in practice it should be deliverable by a timely press of a computer key. That is what Edf Energy appears to lack, but the real question is why?:think:

victor2

snowcat53 wrote: »

I fully appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding the way we calculate our customers Direct Debit reviews, and I can assure you it was a human error which caused the review to be incorrect, and was not a system error.

brewerdave wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:-couldn't make it up, could you??

Maybe life has gone full circle now. Won't be long before the computers are telling us "Sorry, it was a human error, but we're upgrading them next year."

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

The fundamental issue is SLC27.14 compliance.

27.14 The licensee must provide to each such Domestic Customer an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined.

Whatever the regulatory intent other suppliers have accepted here it deserves an arithmetic explanation on request.

Yes absolutely, it is all about SLC27.14. Without this explanation you cannot make a judgement if it is fair or not, or challenge it.

jalexa wrote: »

We don't (yet) know what Ofgem thinks (of their own regulation).:(

I think this is the most fundamental problem - no-one is policing the SLCs. EDF are able to get away with it because they can. Where are Ofgem?

I am also surprised that this issue hasn't been picked up by consumer organisations.

jalexa wrote: »

Surely it cannot mean any of no explanation within an 8 week complaint timeframe, an Energy Ombudsman referral, several contradictory explanations or explanations riddled with logical, arithmetic and basic accountancy errors.

It surely cannot mean incompetent staff (and incompetent supervisory oversight) defining their organisation's regulatory compliance.

Whatever it means in practice it should be deliverable by a timely press of a computer key. That is what Edf Energy appears to lack, but the real question is why?:think:

With EDF I doubt we shall ever know. I think all our efforts have shone some light into the dark corners and forced them to reveal some of what is going on, but not enough

backfoot

Re Ofgem,... In addition to my original letter, I kept them fully informed of all correspondence throughout the complaint process and during my Energy Ombudsman referal. I also spoke several times by phone to them seeking advice, guidance and exchanging my constructive comments on EDF and the subsequent process.

I have also highlighted various MSE threads including EDF Fail Ofgem Rules and this one. I have been told it is being monitored.

I have remained patient but assertive, hoping Ofgem would do something which is blatantly obvious to customers and commentators alike.

As you have all concluded Ofgem seem totally incapable of policing their own regulations and if they do they make a very good job of disguising it.

I have written twice in recent weeks to ask about progress and no further response has been received. It is most disappointing.

To be honest, it is incredibly sad to see a once great industry fall into such disrepute throughout.

brewerdave

Well hello readers -its that time again! The meter reader has been and (of course!) the DD has been jacked up by £35. What has complicated the issue further is that my gas c/h has been out of commission for nearly two weeks (new boiler now needed) so we have had to use electric heating and the immersion heater.
HOWEVER my prediction of electric usage even allowing for this, is less than 7000kwh - their new DD for electricity predicts 10,000kwh!!
Wish me luck @ 8:00am when I ring.

victor2

Not giving them a reading this month and nobody has been to read the meters. Probably will give them a reading next month to see what happens and line things up for my "annual review" date in May. I've increased my DD to cover my usage, but won't quite have a zero balance by review date. They have said I can make a one-off payment to zero it, which in theory would allow my DD to be left where it is.
Did I believe them? Not entirely.