One meter supplying two properties

LewisHamilton

footyguy wrote: »

Goodwill is something a supplier usually provides.
The ombudsman doesn't usually order goodwill payments (unless the at the supplier's suggestion in the negotiation).
Goodwill payments, especially where an ombudsman has needed to become involved are typically about £50, or possibly £100 max.

£300 is not a goodwill payment. If the ombudsman has made this award, then the ombudsman must have good reason to ... and it wouldn't be goodwill, it would be for an error by the supplier causing the customer financial loss (or perhaps compensation for inconvenience & suffering, but again that would not usually be anywhere near £300, unless quantified by the complainant)


Sadly, as we never got to hear the true facts of this complaint, the outcome if true is not really much help to anyone.

The decision states the supplier should offer a goodwill gesture of £350 for the shortfalls in customer service. The inconvenience must have been deemed significant, no financial loss other than potential phone calls or letters which would have been insignificant. So the goodwill payment was probably in recognition of the trouble caused. Our relative didn't even ask for compensation.

naedanger

footyguy wrote: »

As I said back in June.

Your relative is not giving you the true facts here.

No supplier will put a supply in someone else's name.
That would effectively be saying a third party has created a contract between two others.

If it were possible, what would stop us all putting our energy accounts in the name of David Cameron.

Advice given on this board can only ever be as good as the info given.

You seem to be making three statements:

1. "Your relative is not giving you the true facts here."
   
2. "No supplier will put a supply in someone else's name."
3. "Advice given on this board can only ever be as good as the information given".

My thoughts on these are that there is no evidence for supporting the first statement (and really should not be made without any evidence in my view), the second statement is clearly false and that the third is a truism.

naedanger

footyguy wrote: »

Goodwill is something a supplier usually provides.
The ombudsman doesn't usually order goodwill payments (unless the at the supplier's suggestion in the negotiation).
Goodwill payments, especially where an ombudsman has needed to become involved are typically about £50, or possibly £100 max.

£300 is not a goodwill payment. If the ombudsman has made this award, then the ombudsman must have good reason to ... and it wouldn't be goodwill, it would be for an error by the supplier causing the customer financial loss (or perhaps compensation for inconvenience & suffering, but again that would not usually be anywhere near £300, unless quantified by the complainant)


Sadly, as we never got to hear the true facts of this complaint, the outcome if true is not really much help to anyone.

I have a letter from the Ombudsman in front of me now. It includes the following:

"npower will:

* [Various bullet points omitted by me as not relevant here]

* apply a credit of £100 as a goodwill gesture for the shortfalls in service and inconvenience caused".[my emphasis]

The Ombudsman does instruct suppliers to make goodwill payments.

LewisHamilton

footyguy wrote: »

Goodwill is something a supplier usually provides.
The ombudsman doesn't usually order goodwill payments (unless the at the supplier's suggestion in the negotiation).
Goodwill payments, especially where an ombudsman has needed to become involved are typically about £50, or possibly £100 max.

£300 is not a goodwill payment. If the ombudsman has made this award, then the ombudsman must have good reason to ... and it wouldn't be goodwill, it would be for an error by the supplier causing the customer financial loss (or perhaps compensation for inconvenience & suffering, but again that would not usually be anywhere near £300, unless quantified by the complainant)


Sadly, as we never got to hear the true facts of this complaint, the outcome if true is not really much help to anyone.

It's a shame you feel the thread is not any help but I have done my best to explain the background to the complaint and the outcome. I will see if I can find out more information that might help. However, I do feel if someone has a similar dispute, although I guess it would be rare, then they could get some helpful advice from this thread from the response from some posters, in particular Cardew and naedanger. Both posters seem to talk sense.

naedanger

LewisHamilton wrote: »

It's a shame you feel the thread is not any help but I have done my best to explain the background to the complaint and the outcome. I will see if I can find out more information that might help. However, I do feel if someone has a similar dispute, although I guess it would be rare, then they could get some helpful advice from this thread from the response from some posters, in particular Cardew and naedanger. Both posters seem to talk sense.

I think updates are always helpful, even if no two cases are ever identical. In addition, I suspect that many posters find them interesting even if they are of no immediate relevance to them. I know I do.

I hope the response you have received here (from one poster) does not put others off from giving updates.