Comment on - FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Why I started TWO Threads
The MAIN Thread: FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4348967
and this Thread: Comment on - FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points

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 MSM.

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

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

Why I suggested a limit to a single post in the MAIN Thread.
In order to quickly assemble the most important points, that MSM 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 in the 'single Post'. By putting the discussion in a separate thread the main points, that each MSM Poster makes (in the main 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 - THIS 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 THIS Thread for the Comments on the Points (and debate on the Comments).

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

Post #5 in the FAO Ofgem and Secretary of State DECC - 3 points thread.

_undaunted wrote:

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

Quite agree. One Regulator and one point of call.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

backfoot

RE Post 4.

I detailed my own observations in post 6 without reading post 4. It is very interesting to note that even as a new MSE Forum User, you chose to highlight the same frustrations as I and many others have suffered for a long time.

Many of the regular posters, who either have industry experience or customer representation skills, do not just fire off moans about Suppliers or the Regulator without evidence. Many of us have tried to interact with Ofgem, Consumer Focus and the Energy Ombudsman. The employees of these organisations are diligent professional staff, but either through structural or resource problems, such contacts are very hard work and invariably frustrating.

Post 4 sets out some excellent suggestions and I would recommend that Ofgem/Energy Minister look carefully at them.

I personally think that the tariff simplification proposals will go a long way to reducing many of the Supplier sharp practices which were endemic within the overly complex system.

I am not optimistic that some of the Suppliers have adequately specified systems to perform simple Billing and Collection operations to the required standards. There seems to be a malaise of poorly implemented system changes and very slow reacting Managements. There has been good debate on the Forum with a consensus view that the SAP system is an unsuitable platform, yet it seems to be becoming more widespread.

Sharper active Regulation is needed and more open access to the Regulator is required.

backfoot

Re Post 7 (Snowcat) .

I fully endorse the comments made.

They are self explanatory and as always well thought out and clearly stated. The point being is that even this eloquent customer has failed to make headway and progress on pretty simple matters. That is first with Suppliers, who plainly aren't up to the job with dismissive customer service and secondly with the painful remedial regulatory structure.

The majority of the issues being raised are blatant systemic problems and yet they are taking an eternity to come to fruition. Something is badly wrong.

Some good suggestions have already been identified.

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

snowcat, you have made excellent points in Post #7.

backfoot, it is good to have your endorsement.
I also agree with the points you made in Post #6.
I agree with all the points you made about snowcat's points in Post #7.
Indeed, they are "well thought out and clearly stated".

25.6_Pre-contract_oblig

undaunted

Few posters have commented so far admittedly, but it seems interesting that there is a common feeling of disillusionment with the speed, efficiency & effectiveness of the so called regulatory, ombudsman & complaints provisions from a consumer point of view