Can you negotiate compensation with the ombudsman?

*Rainbow*Warrior*

LewisHamilton wrote: »

Are you based on Scotland?

If you do decide to switch suppliers I would double check with the new supplier if they can do the work that you require but it is definitely worth exploring and if the new supplier can do it then I would personally switch to save the disappointment of another failed appointment. You would also have the added bonus of not having to deal with Scottish Power anymore. I would probably try and avoid npower and Extra Energy too if you do decide to switch.

Definitely appreciate the reasons why you want Scottish Power to be punished but it is more Ofgem's role to fine the companies than the ombudsman. The ombudsman's primary role is corrective action for the specific complaint rather than compensation etc. The ombudsman will recommend an award based on the time and trouble you have experienced so I would focus on that.

For example, eight failed appointments has clearly caused hassle and trouble and wasted time. If your father's house is quite a distance from your own home then you can make reference to having to make wasted journeys to and from the property. The whole situation has no doubt been upsetting for you and none of it was your fault.

You can accept maybe one or two failed appointments but three or four is ridiculous. You've mentioned eight failed appointments which is quite simply pathetic and no doubt distressing. I would still focus on time and trouble more than distress but I would definitely make reference to how upsetting the whole process has been and ask that it kindly considers increasing the award to maybe £200. They may increase to £200 or maybe £150 so you have nothing to lose.

Try not to make reference to Scottish Power being punished.

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

I'm in England. I know there are plenty of other providers to choose from, it's just that every time it happened we thought it would be sorted NEXT time, and it just dragged on and on. I'll give them one more chance, and see if they do respond to the ombudsman's instructions.

The distance to the property isn't an issue, it's just how upsetting it was to have to go and sit there waiting in an empty house, for no-one to turn up.

Should I be reporting them to Ofgem then? I hadn't realised they were two different bodies?

System

You cannot re-open the original complaint once the EO has come to a final decision. It is accept or reject, I am afraid. As said previously, if the complainant rejects the EO's offer (fair or otherwise) then the supplier and the EO are off the hook. Neither party will continue to debate the issue. The fallback position is the Courts.

OFGEM will not investigate or comment on individual complaints.

LewisHamilton

Hengus wrote: »

You cannot re-open the original complaint once the EO has come to a final decision. It is accept or reject, I am afraid. As said previously, if the complainant rejects the EO's offer (fair or otherwise) then the supplier and the EO are off the hook. Neither party will continue to debate the issue. The fallback position is the Courts.

OFGEM will not investigate or comment on individual complaints.

I believe the OP has only received the initial findings so they do have the opportunity to provide a response at this stage and to ask the ombudsman to reconsider the part of initial decision and the reasons why.

But of course, once the final decision is issued then that is it in terms of the ombudsman process I believe.

OP - please let us know what the final decision response is after you give your response

LewisHamilton

*Rainbow*Warrior* wrote: »

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

I'm in England. I know there are plenty of other providers to choose from, it's just that every time it happened we thought it would be sorted NEXT time, and it just dragged on and on. I'll give them one more chance, and see if they do respond to the ombudsman's instructions.

The distance to the property isn't an issue, it's just how upsetting it was to have to go and sit there waiting in an empty house, for no-one to turn up.

Should I be reporting them to Ofgem then? I hadn't realised they were two different bodies?

Ofgem will ask the ombudsman for trends and data. Ofgem won't deal with your specific complaint but there's no harm in raising the issue to its attention by email. However, don't expect much of a response from Ofgem.

I believe there are thousands of customers that have had continuous failed appointments with Scottish Power so its clearly a trend and an issue with Scottish Power at the moment.

The actual meter operator could be the underlying issue or Scottish Power's internal system sending the required information to the meter operator about the appointment.

Ofgem should be conducting a wider investigation into Scottish Power to prevent this from happening in the future but as they have already lumped a big fine on Scottish Power this year I doubt much will happen in the immediate future.

In my view, Scottish Power shouldn't even have a licence.

Hopefully the ombudsman starts utilising its wider purpose, which is to identify trends and Ofgem starts doing something about it.

*Rainbow*Warrior*

The email from the ombudsman says 'I am writing to confirm the outcome of my investigation', and at the end says I can accept their decision in full and final settlement, or if I do not accept it then I must respond within 14 days but must be able to:

1) show there is a significant error in the facts or

2) produce significant new evidence which may make a material difference

Looking at this, and having read Hengus's comment, it sounds like it really might be take it or leave it.

Nevertheless I think I should try. I'm suffering with anxiety and depression so I feel this situation has caused me more upset than it would if I wasn't depressed, and that's really why I feel the £100 doesn't reflect the distress caused. I don't think I mentioned that in my original complaint so maybe it's worth pointing that out now.

LewisHamilton

*Rainbow*Warrior* wrote: »

The email from the ombudsman says 'I am writing to confirm the outcome of my investigation', and at the end says I can accept their decision in full and final settlement, or if I do not accept it then I must respond within 14 days but must be able to:

1) show there is a significant error in the facts or

2) produce significant new evidence which may make a material difference

Looking at this, and having read Hengus's comment, it sounds like it really might be take it or leave it.

Nevertheless I think I should try. I'm suffering with anxiety and depression so I feel this situation has caused me more upset than it would if I wasn't depressed, and that's really why I feel the £100 doesn't reflect the distress caused. I don't think I mentioned that in my original complaint so maybe it's worth pointing that out now.

I think you should respond because you will get a final decision that you can accept reluctantly but again I would avoid mentioning about being depressed in response but focus on time, hassle and trouble spent on the issue.

My view is that £100 is too low for anybody who has experienced eight failed appointments in a row for the time and trouble alone. I would be asking for the GSOS payments along with an award of £200 with £150 being the absolute minimum.

If the final decision is £100 plus GSOS payments then I would accept reluctantly but I would have nothing to do with Scottish Power ever again.

You hear complainants getting £100 simply because they got a catch up bill and they made a few calls and sent a few emails trying to get a bill. Some get £100 plus back billing code.

Experiencing eight failed appointments in a row is a lot more distressing and causes a lot more wasted time than chasing a bill for energy that was actually used and the customer benefitted from.

It's all very subjective in the end so there is no right or wrong answer but you have a strong argument to ask it to reconsider the £100 award.

System

I sympathise with the OP but the problem with missed appointments is that OFGEM has already agreed a compensation scheme. By going to the EO, a complainant has agreed to let a third-party determine what it feels is a reasonable settlement. Personally, I have little faith in the system.

That said, by the sound of it, the OP does have one final chance to put new evidence before the EO; however, in my view, they will not respond to emotional arguments nor will they compensate for distress. At the very least, it will require medical evidence to support any case that the OP wishes to make as any investigator would know from the facts already presented that a sequence of missed appointments would cause inconvenience, stress and anxiety.

What would be fair compensation: £250, £500, £1000....? The EO believes that £100 is reasonable based, presumably, on previous awards.

OP. - please bear in mind that if you reject the EO's decision then the supplier is not obliged to pay you a penny more.

Sorry - just read the post above. If you are going to claim additional material costs, then you must produce proof of financial costs.

*Rainbow*Warrior*

No, not additional material costs - I'm just thinking of saying I feel the compensation of £100 is too low because it does not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience experienced.

The £100 is supposed to be in relation to the inconvenience caused by poor customer service, and is actually described as a goodwill gesture. Scottish Power had proposed £50 but the ombudsman felt it should be increased to £100.

I got the impression that the only justification they would accept for questioning the decision is if I can show an error or new evidence. It may be a stretch but I thought I could argue that 'new evidence' is that the distress experienced was worth more than £100 because of the anxiety and depression, so I'm saying it affected me more than it would affect someone who isn't suffering with anxiety and depression. Maybe I'm grasping at straws.

That's really why I asked this question in the first place. I know if it was still in Scottish Power's complaints dept then it would be reasonable to expect to negotiate, but I don't know if that's acceptable with the ombudsman.

LewisHamilton

*Rainbow*Warrior* wrote: »

No, not additional material costs - I'm just thinking of saying I feel the compensation of £100 is too low because it does not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience experienced.

The £100 is supposed to be in relation to the inconvenience caused by poor customer service, and is actually described as a goodwill gesture. Scottish Power had proposed £50 but the ombudsman felt it should be increased to £100.

I got the impression that the only justification they would accept for questioning the decision is if I can show an error or new evidence. It may be a stretch but I thought I could argue that 'new evidence' is that the distress experienced was worth more than £100 because of the anxiety and depression, so I'm saying it affected me more than it would affect someone who isn't suffering with anxiety and depression. Maybe I'm grasping at straws.

That's really why I asked this question in the first place. I know if it was still in Scottish Power's complaints dept then it would be reasonable to expect to negotiate, but I don't know if that's acceptable with the ombudsman.

Honestly, don't worry about explaining the time and trouble you have experienced in your response or asking it to kindly reconsider the award. They will do this and send a final decision even if you have not submitted new evidence. There is nothing to lose and if you explain the trouble and time wasted as a result of having eight failed appointments the adjudicator may take the view that the £100 was too low.

The GSOS payments were agreed with Ofgem but that they are the minimum compensatory payments the customer should expect in the first instance. The goodwill gesture is based on the trouble caused as a result of the failed appointments and poor customer service. Ofgem would have set the £30 payment not expecting the suppliers to miss eight in a row - it is simply pathetic.

Also, if you have experienced other shortfalls in service such as failed call backs etc on top of the failed appointments, I would explain that in your response too. After explaining all the facts in your response and trouble caused, I would conclude by stating this is why you feel £200 is more reflective of the time and trouble. The adjudicator might meet halfway - even if its still too low at least you know your response was listened too and as stated before, you have nothing to lose.

I would not accept the £100 until the final decision is issued. I would then probably accept reluctantly as I know I would not go to court.