EDF Energy. A Cautionary Tale.

MickyLuv

EDF Energy. A Cautionary Tale.

Summary:
When you close your energy provision account with EDF and pay the "Final" bill, don't for one moment believe that this will be the end of it.

Both EDF and their agents LCS continued to threaten and harass me and members of my family even after their further, unjustified demands for money were paid in full.

These companies are predators subject to irrational feeding frenzies once they've tasted the bloody lucre that their bosses and shareholders so avariciously crave.

Some people have said I was a fool for falling for this Energy Company gotcha. Maybe so, but searching the web forums shows that others have had similar surprises. Perhaps as EDF make so much profit from it, they'll be quite reluctant to change their methods without some pressure being applied.

I lived in my last home in Scotland for twelve years, so I'm not very familiar with the process of selling and moving house, along with it's attendant complexities.

As my wife and I were both retiring, selling up and intending to spend 6 months or more in Tasmania I paid particular attention to terminating my dual fuel energy contract with EDF and in settling the final account.

OR SO I THOUGHT.

The contract termination was done following EDF's directions requiring me to fill a form for this purpose on their website.

As part of the process I gave EDF the meter readings on the day I left. I turned off all services to the emptied house, removed fuses and drained down the water system in case the house remained unsold over winter.

We left the house in May 2013.
A short time later I received the "Final" dual fuel bill via my sister in law's house, which was my temporary forwarding address. The bill had been adjusted to a zero amount after a small refund from our previous Direct Debit payments.

OK, off we went to Tasmania, having tidied up loose ends (ha-ha!).

Come March 2014 I get a very distressed email communication from my sister in law in the UK saying that she had received a letter from LCS, a debt collection agency, demanding money from "The Owner/Occupier" of her house for an alleged debt in Scotland which she had absolutely no responsibility for. She was most upset.

When soon after, another letter arrived at my sister in law's house saying that she was going to be personally visited by debt collectors demanding payment, she was beside herself with anxiety, believing that these people would walk into her house and take her belongings.

To avoid exposing my sister in law to further stress my wife paid the money to LCS via their website and got a message from them saying that the payment would be shown on her credit card statement from her bank. It was.

The money paid to LCS was stated by them to be for the EDF dual fuel charges from May 2013 to December 2013, when the house was finally sold.

I then wrote to EDF complaints department saying that I believed their methods were deceptive and harmful and that I was going to take this complaint to the Energy Ombudsman.

They replied by saying that I owed them charges for duel fuel from May 2013 to December 2013 but if accepted their kindly offered waiver of these charges they would call that a resolution to the problem.

I told them that the money had already been paid to LCS.
EDF have disregarded this information and have continued to send me communications claiming that this money is still owed to them.

On investigation I have found that energy companies have been given the legal right to accept the termination of an energy provision contract from a customer, charge a "Final" bill, then immediately open another "Deemed" contract making the owner/occupier of the property liable for continuing energy charges.

This is even if the house is empty, unoccupied and all services turned off. The only option available to counteract this imposition is to have energy services "disconnected". Energy companies don't seem to want to let customers know about this option though.

My complaint to the Energy Ombudsman is that as such contract clauses are most unusual, EDF should be obliged to explain clearly to customers the effects of this continuation of liability through "Deemed" contracts,not hide such important details in the small print of their terms and conditions.



Here is an extract from an Office of Fair Trading (OFT) document in support of my complaint:

'The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open
dealing. Openness requires that terms should be expressed fully, clearly
and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate
prominence should be given to terms which might operate
disadvantageously to the customer. Fair dealing requires that a supplier
should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the
consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with
the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any
other factor listed'
Lord Bingham in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank
[2001] UKHL52 paragraph 17

Clueless101

Sounds like the catalyst for this whole thing is the ambiguity of "moving home". Giving closing meter readings is best done on the day the house is sold and not actually moving day, since, even with zero usage, standing charges are still due. Giving meter readings for moving out could (as far as a computer can process) imply the house is sold and therefore a deemed contract is started for "the new owners" even though there are none.



....then the whole thing snow balls because energy suppliers are notorious for sending debt collector letters to the previous owners new address without sending a revised "final bill" first and the lack of communication between the supplier and debt collectors afterwards.

Chloe01

Goodness, this LCS company i a nightmare and so are the energy companies for being deceitful.

I am at the start of my journey with LCS.

I moved house, 'closed' my account on my old property with npower and then 'opened' my account with npower again on the new property. The day after i moved in i contacted them for the dual fuel giving them closing meter readings on the old house and new readings on the new house - which they took.

I continued to get emails for about 2 months saying they are having trouble closing my account and settling the final bill on the old property but they will do so soon.

After 2.5 months i received my first letter addressed to the LEGAL OWNER from LCS claiming i owed them £125 on behalf of an account with British Gas for £125. I have had no contact from British gas suggesting i had a bill to pay with them, so this was a complete shock, as i thought i was with npower.

I called British Gas straight away and they told me DO NOT contact them. They then explained to me that the period i was being told i owed money for was the time it takes to set up with npower.

So 6 weeks of me not knowing my energy was being supplied by British Gas.

I immediately called npower to complain and they apologised that nobody from npower had informed me the process for changing suppliers when you move into the new home. That being the gas supply would not be supplied by them until they had set me up.

Npower said they would document a small complaint for me.

I asked for the meter readings from the day i moved in to help me manage a conversation with British Gas (NOT LCS), as i had supplied them and they took. In fact i spent 45mins on the phone discussing my suppply - apparently the readings were never documented.

I followed this phonecall with a written complaint online using their website. To date i have had no reply or acknowledgement of my complaint from npower.

I then contacted the previous occupier who after 5 days managed to salvage the information.

While this is going on i received a FINAL bill from British Gas for an amount oweing for ELECTRICITY during the same 6 weeks period. It wasnt too bad so i called them to pay the amount. Then the day after me paying the final balance i received ANOTHER British Gas bill for electricity, a very small amount.... why they couldnt bring the 2 together i don't know. Incredibly confusing.

So having settled the electricity im now incredibly concerned about the amount owed on the gas £125- as this is incredibly steep compared to what npower had quoted my monthly outgoings would be on the new property. Im now frustrated and reluctant to pay because it was not my fault that i did not inform British Gas i had moved in to the property - as i had told npower. It was also frustrating as i must be being charged at the highest tariff that i had no opportunity to flex or influence. As i didnt know i had a relationship with them. In fact it was twice the monthly charge of what i am expecting to pay npower monthly on the same property and supply.

So i receive another letter 'Final Demand for Payment' from LCS and a number of different threats in the letter about unnecessary costs for legal action if left unpaid. I tried to call LCS twice, both times on hold for 15mins PLUS and i also text the number on the letter they sent requesting a call back. I never received a call back.

I then called British Gas and use the customer reference number quoted on the LCS letter saying i owed a £125 Gas bill. I had meter readings at the ready. They search a few times for the account and find it had closed and the bill settled on 9th May.

This corresponds with the time i paid British Gas for the electricity. I then said please check my electricity customer number - they did and again account closed and paid on 9th May. So i asked them to confirm that both Gas and Electricty had been paid and i do not owe them anything. They said yes.

I don't know whats happened here or if npower have got involved with settling the bill on goodwill following my complaint.

I also took the opportunity to complain about the 2 threatening letters i had received from LCS and the fact British Gas never sent me a bill for the period in question to the property. I said that i do not wish to receive any more letters and asked them to make sure this does not happen again.

I asked them to update their records and information supplied to LCS as it is clearly incorrect.

I am awaiting the next letter from LCS in the post. Their letters are incredibly stressful.

I dont know what else to do. Ive contacted British Gas and explained everything and if i dont owe them money, then as far as im concerned i dont owe LCS any money. LCS are quoting customer numbers used by British Gas, so i used this to facilitate a discussion with British Gas who the debt was claimed to be with.

MickyLuv

Clueless101 wrote: »

Sounds like the catalyst for this whole thing is the ambiguity of "moving home".

It's indicative of the self-ordained imperiousness of these companies that they should believe that they have the right to make assumptions about what I am going to do with my property after I have terminated my contract with them.

There has been lots of discussion elsewhere about why these energy companies are legally entitled to open a "deemed contract" immediately a customer tries to end their liability to pay for unwanted and unused gas and electricity.
Much of the stated reasoning is that this procedure is legally applied for "the public good".

The contempt with which this threat and harassment is unleashed on ex-customers, without reasonable explanation and notification really shows the whole shooting match for what it is. It's structured to intimidate past and potential customers into accepting the energy companies claim to continuing profit, OR ELSE! Most people seem to succumb to this threat.

Clueless101 wrote: »

Giving closing meter readings is best done on the day the house is sold and not actually moving day, since, even with zero usage, standing charges are still due. Giving meter readings for moving out could (as far as a computer can process) imply the house is sold and therefore a deemed contract is started for "the new owners" even though there are none.

Exactly! The fabrication of a non-existent situation to extort
money from the innocent and bewildered. The fact that they can continue to do this legally is merely indicative that the politicians and law makers are in the pockets of these predators.

Clueless101 wrote: »

....then the whole thing snow balls because energy suppliers are notorious for sending debt collector letters to the previous owners new address without sending a revised "final bill" first and the lack of communication between the supplier and debt collectors afterwards.

And after being subjected to such an intimidating onslaught most people pay, up and shut up. Much to the celebratory joy of champagne glugging shareholders and big bonus recipients.

Clueless101

Happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge on the matter and sorry to play devil's advocate, but I would have thought responsibility for charges ends on the day you sell the property, therefore you would be liable for the standing charges between May and December, even though you didn't actually use any gas/elec. I know people with all electric properties that used to have gas (but no longer use any gas as the supply is not connected to anything) have had problems with still having to pay the gas standing charge unless they have the meter removed or switch to a non-standing charge tariff.

I'm not suggesting the situation is your fault, because obviously EDF have handled everything badly, but the charges they chased you for (albeit in completely the wrong manner) may be valid if they are just standing charges for May to December. Obviously any late fees or debt collector fees you should not have had to pay, as if EDF had just sent you a clear invoice outlining the charges you could have paid that instead. Also the standing charges of a deemed contract might have been higher than your old tariff that you terminated, so staying on your old tariff until December may have worked out cheaper.

MickyLuv

Clueless101 wrote: »

Happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge on the matter and sorry to play devil's advocate, but I would have thought responsibility for charges ends on the day you sell the property, therefore you would be liable for the standing charges between May and December, even though you didn't actually use any gas/elec.

Yes, that is the law regarding the "deemed contract".
My argument is that as the imposition of a "deemed contract" is so unusual in contractual terms generally, that energy company customers should be advised of the effects and implications of this law when the customer attempts to end their contract with the energy company.

The fact that customers are not advised of this brings about the situation experienced by so many people of being harassed by debt collection agencies and their questionable methods.

The energy companies know full well what is happening here but it's such a good money spinner and an effective method for keeping their claws firmly embedded in both the property and it's past and future inhabitants, that they're unlikely to change unless forced to do so.

Clueless101 wrote: »

I know people with all electric properties that used to have gas (but no longer use any gas as the supply is not connected to anything) have had problems with still having to pay the gas standing charge unless they have the meter removed or switch to a non-standing charge tariff.
I'm not suggesting the situation is your fault, because obviously EDF have handled everything badly, but the charges they chased you for (albeit in completely the wrong manner) may be valid if they are just standing charges for May to December. Obviously any late fees or debt collector fees you should not have had to pay, as if EDF had just sent you a clear invoice outlining the charges you could have paid that instead. Also the standing charges of a deemed contract might have been higher than your old tariff that you terminated, so staying on your old tariff until December may have worked out cheaper.

What I and others in my position should have been offered is an explanation of the unusual effects of the "deemed contract" and the only option available to overcome such an imposition, which is "disconnection" of the energy supply.

Regarding my own experience:
The debt collection agency was paid in full for the EDF charges from May 2013 to December 2013. Yet, this has stopped neither EDF or LCS continuing to demand payment for these same specific charges. Clearly the left hand can't process what the right hand is doing because they're both too full of extorted dosh.

vuvuzela

MickyLuv wrote: »

Yes, that is the law regarding the "deemed contract".
My argument is that as the imposition of a "deemed contract" is so unusual in contractual terms generally, that energy company customers should be advised of the effects and implications of this law when the customer attempts to end their contract with the energy company.

The fact that customers are not advised of this brings about the situation experienced by so many people of being harassed by debt collection agencies and their questionable methods.

The energy companies know full well what is happening here but it's such a good money spinner and an effective method for keeping their claws firmly embedded in both the property and it's past and future inhabitants, that they're unlikely to change unless forced to do so.



What I and others in my position should have been offered is an explanation of the unusual effects of the "deemed contract" and the only option available to overcome such an imposition, which is "disconnection" of the energy supply.

Regarding my own experience:
The debt collection agency was paid in full for the EDF charges from May 2013 to December 2013. Yet, this has stopped neither EDF or LCS continuing to demand payment for these same specific charges. Clearly the left hand can't process what the right hand is doing because they're both too full of extorted dosh.

A disconnection will cost you money. It will also cost your potential purchaser money and may hamper the sale of your house - who on earth is going to want to move into a house and have no fuel supply to do anything ?
The very simple answer in casses like this is to find the supplier with the lowest standing charge if there is to be no fuel consumed. This would have been Ebico https://www.ebico.org.uk/ with n o standing charge.

MickyLuv

vuvuzela wrote: »

A disconnection will cost you money. It will also cost your potential purchaser money and may hamper the sale of your house - who on earth is going to want to move into a house and have no fuel supply to do anything ?

That would be my choice, merely because it is the only alternative available. This is because the greedy energy companies define all the options, or lack thereof.

vuvuzela wrote: »

The very simple answer in casses like this is to find the supplier with the lowest standing charge if there is to be no fuel consumed. This would have been Ebico https://www.ebico.org.uk/ with n o standing charge.

Why would I want to find an alternative supplier when I have no intention of using any energy in an empty and unoccupied property? You're merely recommending an out of the frying pan into the fire, when there is no frying or fire required.

The whole structure incorporating the energy companies, their charges, their predatory "debt" collectors and the government departments paid to moderate their excesses are just a monstrous conglomerate of scams.

When I telephone called the Energy Ombudsman department this morning regarding their lack of response to my original complaints, I was told that they don't have anything to do with complaints about LCS, the debt collecting agency of the energy companies. Nor do they have anything to do with complaints about energy company standing charges. All the adviser there could suggest, was that I get in touch with "Trading Standards" to seek a solution. The only trouble with this, I was told, was that the "Trading Standards" would just tell me to get in touch with the Energy Ombudsman.

Nice wee closed loop of encircled wagons there eh?

Nada666

MickyLuv wrote: »

Yes, that is the law regarding the "deemed contract".
My argument is that as the imposition of a "deemed contract" is so unusual in contractual terms generally, that energy company customers should be advised of the effects and implications of this law when the customer attempts to end their contract with the energy company.

So you would rather not have any access to lighting or heat or hot water every time you move for several weeks? This may be once in a blue moon for you but for renters or more frequent purchasers this would be a ridiculous annoyance. Will your employer allow you to stay off work for a week or two just because you are unwashed and are waiting for an engineer to turn things on? Do you really think paying for an engineer's visit to turn things off and paying for (and waiting for) an engineer to turn things on at the new place would be cheaper than standing charges/deemed tariff deltas? Deemed contracts are entirely sensible.

And standing charges and tariff structures are not the remit of the ombudsman. Why would they?

vuvuzela

MickyLuv wrote: »

That would be my choice, merely because it is the only alternative available. This is because the greedy energy companies define all the options, or lack thereof.


Why would I want to find an alternative supplier when I have no intention of using any energy in an empty and unoccupied property? You're merely recommending an out of the frying pan into the fire, when there is no frying or fire required.

The whole structure incorporating the energy companies, their charges, their predatory "debt" collectors and the government departments paid to moderate their excesses are just a monstrous conglomerate of scams.

When I telephone called the Energy Ombudsman department this morning regarding their lack of response to my original complaints, I was told that they don't have anything to do with complaints about LCS, the debt collecting agency of the energy companies. Nor do they have anything to do with complaints about energy company standing charges. All the adviser there could suggest, was that I get in touch with "Trading Standards" to seek a solution. The only trouble with this, I was told, was that the "Trading Standards" would just tell me to get in touch with the Energy Ombudsman.

Nice wee closed loop of encircled wagons there eh?

No, I was recommending a supplier with a zero standing charge, so you simply paid for the energy used. No frying or fire would be by doing your method of a hugely inconvenient disconnection therefore no fuel.

MickyLuv

vuvuzela wrote: »

No, I was recommending a supplier with a zero standing charge, so you simply paid for the energy used. No frying or fire would be by doing your method of a hugely inconvenient disconnection therefore no fuel.

Yes,
why accept that I should seek a different supplier when a supplier and a supply is exactly what I don't want?

If the energy companies seek to charge for unwanted and unused energy and the only option they offer as an alternative is disconnection, with it's own attendant disadvantages, then so be it.

You also mistakenly assume that the energy companies offer the only way to build a fire or heat a frying pan. Yet another attempt to falsely limit the options and leave customers in the hands of these blood sucking energy companies.