Switching - amendments to final reading

Cardew

hjd wrote: »

It seems to me that they do not trust the customer to read the meters correctly.

Correct - and I suspect in many cases with some justification. Some posters on MSE openly advocate 'tweaking' the meter readings to their advantage.


The losing company use a computer algorithm to estimate the closing meter readings and if there is a large discrepancy between the estimate and customer figure will dispute the readings.

hjd

Cardew wrote: »

Correct - and I suspect in many cases with some justification. Some posters on MSE openly advocate 'tweaking' the meter readings to their advantage.


The losing company use a computer algorithm to estimate the closing meter readings and if there is a large discrepancy between the estimate and customer figure will dispute the readings.

The trouble with a computer algorithm is it's only as good as the information fed into it. Our house was built in 2008 and lived in by 5 people until we bought it 2 years ago; there are 2 or 3 of us living here (depending on the exact period you look at). 2 years isn't really long enough to establish a pattern.
I have calculated the overcharge (difference between readings costed at difference in price) to be just under £10 but it is my £10, not the electricity company's £10!

Haarlem

Cardew wrote: »

Correct - and I suspect in many cases with some justification. Some posters on MSE openly advocate 'tweaking' the meter readings to their advantage.


The losing company use a computer algorithm to estimate the closing meter readings and if there is a large discrepancy between the estimate and customer figure will dispute the readings.

I accept your point Cardew.

But my reading was accurate, and a customer's circumstances can change which means the standard algorithm is not relevant. I would have thought the path to challenge / amend the reading was back through the new supplier who in my case were using the reading I gave them to produce a new bill after 3 months. Not using the correct communication channels results in the problem becoming more complicated, especially when Scotish Power would not recognise it as a complaint.

The lesson from my problem was that Facebook is more powerful than a suppliers complaint procedure

Cardew

Haarlem wrote: »

I accept your point Cardew.

But my reading was accurate, and a customer's circumstances can change which means the standard algorithm is not relevant. I would have thought the path to challenge / amend the reading was back through the new supplier who in my case were using the reading I gave them to produce a new bill after 3 months. Not using the correct communication channels results in the problem becoming more complicated, especially when Scotish Power would not recognise it as a complaint.

The lesson from my problem was that Facebook is more powerful than a suppliers complaint procedure

No dispute about that whatsoever; and obviously a standard algorithm will produce incorrect results both low and high. I was merely explaining the mechanism.


In fact I recently changed tariffs within the same company(SP) and the computer rejected my meter reading for gas, but accepted it for electricity. Fortunately the meter was read a day or so later and it confirmed my reading was correct. Not that SP have used that latter meter reading yet - the difference is pennies.


I have an annex, with separate gas & electricity, that has very little use; and when used the consumption pattern is highly variable. Some years ago with BG I changed the tariff and it rejected my gas meter reading and changed it to a reading that estimated the reading to be 2 units higher; again pennies. However when the meter was next read there had been no consumption and the reading was rejected because it was lower than the earlier estimated reading; so it substituted a higher estimated reading.