FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points

Please make only ONE Post in this thread.

Please use the thread
Comment on - FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4348989
for your Comments on Posts made in this thread.

Now that I know Ofgem have seen the thread
Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4273611

I am inviting MSE Posters to make ONE Post giving your three most important points for Ofgem and/or the Secretary of State: Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to consider.
See Post #3 for background.

There are many knowledgeable, experienced and helpful Posters here at MSE.
Each of them may well have important topics that they think 'need looking at'.
Some may be 'urgent current issues' others may be policy points or recommendations for improvements as to how the Gas and Electricity Utilities are (or could be) Regulated.

To draw out the most important issues I am proposing that each Poster limits their contribution to a SINGLE Post (in this thread) making a maximum of three points. For Posters who have made more than 1,000 Posts can I suggest that they are allowed an additional point for each 1,000 Posts. For example, backfoot would get two additional points (total 5) and Terrylw1 six additional points (total 9).

Many Posters will want to comment.
Please use the Comment thread for this discussion
Comment on - FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4348989

• If you work in the Industry and/or assist Consumers please say so in the Introduction to your Post.

• You may post links to other threads (giving supporting information / more detail / specific examples).

• You may edit your Posts. Please date major edits.

• Please do not delete your Post (as this will 'muck up the Post numbers'). If you want to withdraw a point (or a whole Post) just edit your point to e.g. "3. Point withdrawn."

• Feel free to use the "Thanks" button if you think a Post is important.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Holding Post / place holder

If themes emerge from this thread I may make links to the Posts below.




25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Why I started this thread

In August 2012 I stumbled into an issue. In September 2012 it began to dawn on me that my issue was one example of a systemic issue at npower. In October 2012 I began to feel that, like Alice, I had fallen down a rabbit hole into a very strange world. I nearly used the handle "Alice-in-EO-and-Ofgem-land" here at MSE.

It was obvious to me that npower had issues with their 'new system'. It was NOT obvious how I could get Ofgem to assess how serious this was, how many Customers were affected. From late October 2012 I began to appreciate that there were many knowledgeable, experienced and helpful Posters here at MSE.

In December 2012, in conversation, I confirmed that Consumer Focus find MSE a good source of information: about current Consumer issues and trends.

It is possible that Ofgem and/or DECC monitor MSE too. I hope they do. I waited to start this thread until I had confirmation that Ofgem were aware of the thread about the npower issues (see Post #1).

Why I suggested a limit to a single post
In order to quickly assemble the most important points, that MSE Posters want to raise, I thought it would be good to let everybody 'have their say' but limit their contribution to '3 Points in a Single Post'. I hope that there will be thoughtful, high quality points made here. By putting the discussion in a separate thread the main points, that each MSE Poster makes in this thread, will be easy to read.

Putting myself in Ofgem's or DECC's shoes I would be looking for well argued, evidence based Points.
I would give more credence to Posters who have been thanked in a high proportion to their total Posts.

Why I suggested a separate Discussion Thread

The discussion may well clarify the issues. Some Posters enjoy the debate. I have no wish to stifle debate. However, in some threads there are so many additional points made that it is easy for the main topic to be 'diverted' / 'swamped' by the 'chatter of debate' that follows. So, I decided to start two threads: one for the Points and another for the Comments on the Points (and debate on the Comments).

Reminder: in this unusual thread, please

• One Post ONLY, max 3 Points (unless you have made 1,000 Posts at MSE - see Post #1)

• Post links (to back up your Points)
• Edit Posts (date major edits)
• Don't delete Posts (edit them to withdraw your text)

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Background
I am a Consumer. From the mid 1970s, for two decades, I was a reader of Which? (i.e. a member of the Consumer's Association). I did not look at MSE until October 2012.
Since graduation, as a mature Student, most of my work has been in IT.
I have not worked in the Energy Supply Industry.

Regulated Environment
I have worked in Clinical Trials. These are governed by both UK and European Legislation, Regulation and Regulators (of various kinds). In addition, all 'Trial Staff' have to keep their Good Clinical Practice certification up to date.
All Clinical Staff, who give care to Patients, are also bound by their own Professional Ethics (and Professional Body / Regulator).
The principle of "Informed Consent" is, IMHO, a good model for 'how to inform Consumers of their rights'.

I am not saying I think 'Clinical Trials are perfect'. For example, I think Pharmaceutical Companies should be forced to publish all their Clinical Trial results - not just the ones that make their product 'look good'. I am saying 'we can apply the principles of informed consent' to the Consumer sphere.

Competitors who co-operate
The example of the UK Insurance Industry is interesting.
The large Insurance Companies, who compete with each other, also co-operate. This enables them to 'electronically swap data' (think 'switching sites') and they facilitate IFAs secure access to portals run buy separate, competing, Insurance Companies.
See Origo and Unipass.


My three points for Ofgem and DECC's consideration are:

1. Ofgem - how to inform Ofgem of systemic issues

"Protecting existing and future customers is Ofgem's first priority. We do this by promoting competition, wherever appropriate, and regulating the monopoly companies which run the gas and electricity networks. Ofgem wants to ensure that companies compete fairly and meet their legal obligations."

Ofgem Factsheet 113 - 21.06.2012

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Pages/FactSheet.aspx

Although I wanted Ofgem to know about
Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4273611

in October 2012 it took 7 weeks for me to get confirmation that Ofgem 'were aware' of this issue. A less determined reporter would not have persisted. Early warning and rapid investigation could, potentially, have limited the impact of this issue.

Consumer Focus do monitor MSE: I have been told (by Consumer Focus) that they find it useful.
I recommend that Ofgem also monitor MSE.

Please also consider having:

• Whistle blower helpline
• Consumer panel

Cost of Investigation
Consider charging the Supplier under Investigation for any extra cost, e.g. cost of temporary Auditors / Monitors / Investigators. In the Warning: npower accept new customers without sending them a Contract issue 'switching sites' got caught up in the (alleged) 'mess caused by npower'. IMHO they could be reimbursed by npower, under Ofgem's supervision, for the 'extra cost of investigation by Ofgem'. Also, as the reporter of this issue I have had to expend a lot of my time.

I see no reason, in principle, why Ofgem can not make unannounced inspections of Suppliers: pour encourager les autres.


2. The Energy Ombudsman

There seem to be very serious issues with the EO.
There is a perception that the EO is "supplier biased" Terrylw1.


Read these threads:

The Energy Ombudsman - Good or Bad ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4126943

What do you do if the Ombudsman gets it wrong??
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4195843

Energy Ombudsman compensation levels
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3962891

It is difficult to know where to start with this issue!
Reform is needed.

If some of the cases, in the threads just cited, were taken to Judicial Review I would expect the Consumers would be vindicated. However, I can't think how this could be funded.

In a reformed EO service please consider Ofgem instructing the EO to:

2.1 NOT alter a Consumer's submission.

2.2 All submissions that allege breaches of SLC(s) should be referred to Ofgem.
2.2.1 For adjudication of the narrow, but vital, point on whether there was a breach of the SLC.
2.2.2 For Ofgem's record of 'breaches of SLCs' - i.e. monitoring.

2.3 Ofgem should publish any case where a Supplier was found to breach a SLC.
I would advocate in the form of 'Consumer (anonymous) vs Supplier (named)'
e.g. "Consumer vs EDF", "Consumer vs SSE" etc.
In these published cases it would be in order to say 'Case 1765432 is similar to Case 23486: Breach of SLC 22.8' if there was an already a published case.

2.3.1 Consumers should be allowed refer to the 'example breaches' (see 2.3) in their Complaint to Suppliers (and so reduce the load on the EO) as well as in a Complaint to the EO.

2.4 Any action that the EO orders the Supplier to take should be followed up by Ofgem: to ensure compliance.

I am confident that others who have experienced the EO service will have points to raise.


3. Direct Debits and SLC 27.14

Suppliers are supposed to explain the changes in the DD.

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

Many Suppliers, according to Posters at MSE, seem to vary DDs in favour of the cash flow of the Supplier without explaining "in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis" for the change.

If Suppliers were able to explain the reasons, which at the moment many are not, then there would be far less 'taking excessive money in advance' from Consumers.

Example threads include:

Consumer Focus response to MSE posts on E.On 'Spring review' DD scheme
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3686969


EDF direct debit manipulation <== very active thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4292717

EDF Energy: upping direct debits by random, huge & unnecessary amounts
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3661803


Npower bill - had an increase?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3519507
This thread is quite old.
In recent weeks there have been several threads e.g.

nPower
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4341167

Npower ARRGHHHH!!!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4338545


Scottish Power are driving me nuts
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4084491


I have ordered the three points:

• easy for Ofgem to implement ==> harder to fix
• particular ==> general
• simple ==> complex

I think point 2 (EO) is strategically important and
point 3 (SLC 27.14) is having the most impact, to the detriment of Consumers, at the moment.

Thank you for reading,

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

undaunted

To me with growing numbers of people facing fuel poverty

The transfer objection on grounds of debt needs to be removed. Needing to clear a debt when unable should not mean consumers being forced to pay over the odds for future supplies. Ofgem have themselves (years ago!) stated this practice to create monopoly and act against consumer interests and that they proposed to remove it.

Competiton generally should be encouraged not hindered. At present companies wishing to enter the market must agree to support the above transfer objection whether they agree with it or not. If they don't the other companies can block them under the MRA

There needs to be one regulator & point of call for disatisfied consumers & suppliers not a mish mash of Ofgem, Ombudsman, Consumer Focus etc all passing the buck

backfoot

I am a energy customer and regular contributor to the forum. I have knowledge of the Energy Sector and I am a qualified finance professional. I try to assist family members with Energy and financial matters and try to give supportive advice, when I have time, to energy customers on this Forum who have problems.

My three points come from many years trying to resolve some of the bigger challenges which have faced energy customers.

1. Regulatory Structure.

The existing structure does not work effectively. Faced with a problem an uninformed customer cannot distinguish between Ofgem, Consumer Focus or the Energy Ombudsman. Only one body is needed.

2. Systemic Problems

There is no effective way or route for a customer to alert Ofgem to systemic problems or Regulatory breaches. Ofgem remain well away from current big issues and do not react to redress or redirect Suppliers to make remedies. Nearly all Enforcement action is retrospective, often years down the line from the original incident. There needs to be a fast track process to get hold of issues involving obvious Supplier system failures and /or breaches of Regulations.

Examples include Exit Fee manipulation and ongoing errors by Suppliers, Direct Debit Manipulation (Eon ) and information breaches.(see thread EDF fail Ofgem Rules https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3787041 ), NPower Contracts missing. Npower Gas Sculpting. All of these have fallen into black holes for lengthy periods of time and only the most determined customers have helped resolve them, despite their huge impact.

We have seen that new system implementations are often at the root cause of widespread customer dissatisfaction. e.g. NPower and EDF currently. Where such events occur, new customer take up should be prohibited until the issues are fully resolved to the Regulator's satisfaction.

Individual Complaints regarding customer service standards,billing issues,processing errors, can be dealt with as now, but on a much shorter timescale say referred onwards after 6 weeks.

3. Energy Ombudsman is not effective.

Linked in with point 1. There is much evidence of dissatisfaction with the Energy Ombudsman. The process takes too long, The terms of reference are being misinterpreted. The quality of investigation is poor and the review process worthless. The level of compensation awarded is dismal even in successful cases.

The role should be absorbed within Ofgem and the above matters redressed.

snowcat53

I am an energy customer with experience of various suppliers over the years and I periodically post on this forum. Most recently I have been posting about problems with EDF both on my own account and that of my mother's.

The points I would raise are
1. The lack of clarity as to who take a complaint to if it is not resolved by the supplier. I have been in the past been batted around from Customer Focus, Ofgem, and the Energy Ombudsman, and their respective remits are impossible for the basic consumer to fathom. A single effective system is needed where complaints are triaged according to the type..

2. The Energy Ombudsman system is ineffectual and slow. In my case they initially twice refused to accept my complaint on wholly spurious grounds. . When they finally did accept it I won the case, but they attempted to rewrite my complaint to remove references to SLCs. The level of understanding of the issue by several handlers was appalling, and there was evidence of trying to slough off responsibility and of a bias towards the supplier. They refused to deal with the issue of breach of SLCs and no referral was made to Ofgem, and EDF's systemic underlying problem was unaddressed so that other customers still face the same poor treatment.. The EO is not fit for purpose.

3. The most serious consequence is that nobody will act to enforce suppliers to abide by the SLCs ( a term I was blissfully unaware of a year or two ago) in timely fashion. There are numerous examples where there are very clear breaches going on for months even years and customers are suffering directly but none of the above bodies will either look at these or intervene to enforce them. Routine and continuing breach of SLC 27.14 by EDF (at least) has been well documented in this forum but no action has been taken to deal with this systemic problem