Scottish Power doubles gas DD based on basic error

spiro

Malcnascar wrote: »

I am with SP, regretfully. I have been trying to run down my credit balance. I am submitting monthly readings. These trigger a bill. However, they also trigger a review of the direct debit which I understood took into account the credit balance. Strangely, even though my fixed rate ends at the end of February, and the credit balance will easily cover my January and February usage, SP advised my direct debit needed to increase.
When I tried to use the direct debit amendment on my account, their system would allow me to reduce the payment if I paid a "deposit" upfront to make sure my account would not be in deficit at review time.

I mistakenly thought the annual review would coincide with the fixed rate expiry. How stupid I was to think this. Seems to me they want me to be their banker.

For me, I read with horror, on this site, at the difficulty of getting credit balances returned. So when my current deal ends I intend to take a further fixed rate deal but not on direct debit but revert to quarterly in arrears billing. Yes the cost will be higher but when I "owe" them I will be off to pastures new. Fortunately SP dont charge to end fixed rates and my credit balance should easily cover a "deposit" if they want one.

Two points; firstly when they do your annual review my understanding is OFGEM now require suppliers to refund any credit in excess of about £20, secondly most good deals require you to pay by DD so you may miss out.

System

Cardew wrote: »

Personally I don't think the explanation you were given about the '
automatic billing system had taken my 12 month usage data but averaged it over 6 months' was correct.


I believe all of the computer systems use a standard algorithm(written by an ex MSE contributor) that is pretty sophisticated and uses weather statistics from the Met office etc. This algorithm is independently audited.


However like all computer systems 'Rubbish in = rubbish out' and utility companies seem to excel at feeding in nonsense and not checking stupid outputs.

This was the explanation offered to me by E.oN in June last year when I queried how much energy that it had estimated that I had used in the previous 12 months:

Quote Since joining us in February, you've used 3357kWh of gas over 110 days. If we look at your daily average use of 30.51kWh per day and use this to work out a full year of gas use, we've calculated that you'd use 11139kWh of gas over the full year. Unquote

The AQ for my property, and the previous 12 months actual gas consumption, was about 8500kWhs. No sign of any sophisticated algorithm being used here.

Cardew

Hengus wrote: »

This was the explanation offered to me by E.oN in June last year when I queried how much energy that it had estimated that I had used in the previous 12 months:

Quote Since joining us in February, you've used 3357kWh of gas over 110 days. If we look at your daily average use of 30.51kWh per day and use this to work out a full year of gas use, we've calculated that you'd use 11139kWh of gas over the full year. Unquote

The AQ for my property, and the previous 12 months actual gas consumption, was about 8500kWhs. No sign of any sophisticated algorithm being used here.

Was that explanation in writing, or verbal?


There were several posts on MSE a long while back(8/9 years??) about the algorithm, from someone who stated he had written the algorithm and input from several sources iirc. It also named the firm who carried out the audit.

System

Cardew wrote: »

Was that explanation in writing, or verbal?


There were several posts on MSE a long while back(8/9 years??) about the algorithm, from someone who stated he had written the algorithm and input from several sources iirc. It also named the firm who carried out the audit.

In an e-mail from E.oN which, obviously I still have and which was provided to The EO in a formal complaint. The EO's response not only concluded that energy suppliers have a licence obligation to minimise consumer debt, but they also said that historical energy use (meaning I think the AQ) was no indication of present energy use. It took The EO 4 months to basically ignore all the detailed evidence provided to it. By this time, I had ditched E.oN and moved to Ovo who seemed quite happy with the AQ and my projected annual energy use.

Cardew

Hengus wrote: »

In an e-mail from E.oN which, obviously I still have and which was provided to The EO in a formal complaint. The EO's response not only concluded that energy suppliers have a licence obligation to minimise consumer debt, but they also said that historical energy use (meaning I think the AQ) was no indication of present energy use. It took The EO 4 months to basically ignore all the detailed evidence provided to it. By this time, I had ditched E.oN and moved to Ovo who seemed quite happy with the AQ and my projected annual energy use.

Well obviously that email was a nonsense; but that really makes my point about 'rubbish in = rubbish out' if they even used the computer!


I am not defending the companies, I have had enough nonsense on DDs with SP myself over the past year. However they must still have an algorithm to check at the review point and calculate the level of the DD. The companies are not going to check 20 million households(30+ million accounts?) manually as they appear to have done in your case(and others?)

System

I think, in my case, this was a 'clever' CS guy in the Complaints Department just trying to fob me off. My original complaint was about the inflated 'energy used in the past 12 months' figures that appeared on my first bill. I had only been with E.oN a month. When I switched to Ovo in August, their assessment fell back to historic norms.

If I recall, Ovo used to have a graph on its website showing % usage by month for gas and electricity. This seems to have disappeared.