EDF direct debit manipulation

backfoot

Retrovertigo wrote: »

Yep, will be doing exactly that. I'm sure they will change the DD, but I'm not letting them get away with just changing it to being suitable. I want that detailed explanation to see just what is wrong with their system.

Once I have that explanation though, is there anything I can do with it other than post it here for curiosities sake? Would ofgem look into it to make sure it gets changed so that other people don't get hassle like this?

I am already in contact with Ofgem regarding this. I took a case to the Energy Ombudsman and won my case, but the ruling contained some confusing detail.

The more evidence I can collate the better to show that many customers are affected by EDF's systemic failure.

There appears to be obvious flaws in the calculations and EDF are withholding explanations. Keeping up the pressure on them will eventually yield results.

I am sure EDF will alter your DD. It is their easy way out.

I am pleased that you are keen to get this right for everyone's benefit. :T

snowcat53

Nail on head, retro. Which is why to us and any reasonable person they are in breach of the famed SLC 27.14.(but apparently not to those in the Ombudsman' s office)

jalexa

Retrovertigo wrote: »

This is a lie in itself:(, as they have changed the direct debit payment already and a payment is due the 1st of December.

Not sure what you are saying there. If a revised amount is collected prior to 6/1/2013 that will be a breach of direct debit rules and easily corrected by your bank.

jalexa

Retrovertigo wrote: »

I mean, it is obviously a mistake. I even asked my uncle to check it last night, as he runs his own businesses and does how own books. I thought maybe I was mis-reading something, as I was getting all worked up. He just stood there saying it didn't make any sense, and how on earth did they come up with the new DD payments.

It's not "obviously a mistake" at all. The issue is that supply regulations require a 12 month statement projection but the direct debit calculation is a 'payment year' calculation which the "statement" does not explain, though apparently it was crystal clear to at least one Energy Ombudsman investigation officer.:rotfl:

To expose Edf you need to request a explanation for the DD recalculation, which BTW may (or may not) be accurate in accordance with the 'payment year' rules.

Retrovertigo

jalexa wrote: »

Not sure what you are saying there. If a revised amount is collected prior to 6/1/2013 that will be a breach of direct debit rules and easily corrected by your bank.

I checked with my account on their website. Payment is now set at £74 per month. Next payment is due on 1st Dec. Therefore the next payment sent to them will be for £74 as that is what is detailed on their website under my payment/bank details.

So despite them saying the charge will apply from jan 2014, it won't, as they have already changed my DD payments under bank details. So 1st Dec is when they will first claim £74 off me.

I'm totally lost when you talk about payment per year amounts. They have given me a projection that equates to around £30 per month for electricity. I just can't see where you are saying that £75 may not be inaccurate based on per year payments? How can £30 (which is what I have used for years) become £75 depending on how you calculate it? I'm confused. After all, the projection for gas is the same under the new DD payment as it is under my projected yearly billing. No difference at all I don't think.

jalexa

Retrovertigo wrote: »

I'm totally lost when you talk about payment per year amounts.

That is why you need to ask Edf for the date of your next 'annual review' and an explanation of the direct debit calculation at which point you may learn something to your advantage.

So 1st Dec is when they will first claim £74 off me.

Maybe. If it happens your bank must make an immediate reinstatement on request. Which will take Edf at least a bill cycle to recover from and would be prima facie grounds for a Complaint:D.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

It's not "obviously a mistake" at all.

Sorry Jalexa I have to disagree. Based on what Retrovertigo has told us I see no way that any difference in the period used for calculation could make that new DD correct.

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

Sorry Jalexa I have to disagree. Based on what Retrovertigo has told us I see no way that any difference in the period used for calculation could make that new DD correct.

OK, clearly there is a fundamental tactical difference between my approach to "the calculation" and your approach (and others).

I *think* you are saying that in the particular circumstances posted by Retrovertigo there is no difference between a 'payment year' calculation and a calculation using 'annual statement' data.

First of all I need to know whether you accept it is *possible* Retrovertigo might have an 'annual review' date different from the November 2013 'statement period' end date. [I take it you realise that the Edf 'statement year' is a rolling 12 month period beginning every statement - not aligned on the the supply anniversary?]

Actually what you, backfoot, Retrovertigo or I think is neither here nor there. The issue is what calculation Edf are performing to deliver the "£75" result. That calculation is the "available on request" calculation we all want to see.

Will that shed any light on the "statement" calculation? I do not *know*, but I suspect it may. Two variables in particular are potentially affected. The first is the number of payments due for the remainder of the 'payment scheme' year, The second is how the current payment adequacy relates to the remaining seasonally weighted consumption of (mainly) the heating fuel. Retrovertigo has relied on a November £80 credit balance as evidence of adequacy but I do not believe the adequacy can be determined in the absence of the variables I mention.

For Retrovertigo to ask for their 'annual review' date is straightforward, the "calculation" less so, and would allow some progress on the fundamental issue of Edf direct debit compliance, on which I believe there is mutual agreement.

snowcat53

jalexa wrote: »

First of all I need to know whether you accept it is *possible* Retrovertigo might have an 'annual review' date different from the November 2013 'statement period' end date.

Actually what you, backfoot, Retrovertigo or I think is neither here nor there. The issue is what calculation Edf are performing to deliver the "£75" result. That calculation is the "available on request" calculation we all want to see.
.

On the first point, yes it is entirely possible. .I know that in my mother's case her 'statement year' was sep12-sep13 but the annual review is due in december. It is useful to know that date but my point is simply that calculations using any period could never justifiably give EDF's figure for the DD.

Absolutely agree on the last point though, and we need as many examples as possible of EDF's mysterious calculations to give us ammunition.

jalexa

snowcat53 wrote: »

my point is simply that calculations using any period could never justifiably give EDF's figure for the DD.

Possibly I agree:D, but that is not a "forever figure", only the figure allegedly required to deliver a zero balance on the 'annual review' date, at which point the correct figure would/should revert to projected annual cost/12.