EDF behaving badly

Alisdisgrace

So EDF Energy. What a totally crap company.My eldest son and his housemates moved out of their student house on 31st August. On 1st September, my son submitted their final meter readings. Actually he submitted them on 2nd, but they insisted that he'd done it on 1st, which proves they'd had them a week before issuing their final invoice. On 9th September he received the final bill with *estimated* readings, totalling £126 for ONE WEEK (they'd recently paid a bill). So he calls and explains that he'd submitted actual readings a week before this bill and could they revise the bill please.
Erm no. Apparently they can't because he'd ended the contract AND WAS NO LONGER WITH THEM. They indicated that, if he was taking out a new contract in his new home, there wouldn't be a problem, but he is in a house with a resident landlady so has no control over energy supplier. So "Do you expect me to pay this estimated bill because your system ignored my meter readings and you now can't change the estimated readings because I'm no longer with you?" That would be a yes 🙄🙄🙄. How seriously crap is that? He now has to call the disputed bills department (and with a system like this what's the betting he can't get through because they are too busy??). Oh and they aren't allowed to give out the number for the disputed bills department (I wonder why?) but he has to call the main number and wait to be out through. That'll be next week accounted for then.

In the end, I copied the above into a post on Twitter addressed to EDF. Almost instant response. He then had to contact them via SOCIAL MEDIA (why?? Surely contacting their office in the normal way should have been sufficient?) and it was eventually sorted. But the message we came away with was that (a) they will ignore your final readings and insist that you pay an estimated bill (so basically pay a bill based on figures THEY HAVE JUST MADE UP), (b) contacting their customer service department is a waste of time and (c) social media seems to have more clout than any other method of communication, oh and (d) they will try to get you to enter into another contract with them in order to sort out your old one.

Cardew

This is a problem that is often raised particularly in Student houses; and usually raised by the new occupant. Not just EDF - all companies.

The predictions(estimated readings) for gas/electricity consumption are calculated using a sophisticated Ofgem approved algorithm; so they are not 'just made up'. If the meter reading given is outside a certain tolerance, the all seeing, all knowing, Computer rejects the reading and substitutes an Estimated reading calculated using that algorithm.

Obviously there are many reasons why consumption is lower than than predicted; even(shock horror) that the customer has deliberately fudged the readings(not implying that your son has done this).

We get many posts on here from people who move in and find they are paying for some of the old occupant's energy.

Has anyone moved into the old property so they can verify his readings?

If your son pursues his case, he will doubtless win and may even get the whole bill written off as a 'Goodwill gesture'

Alisdisgrace

So an estimated bill of £126 for one week is acceptable to the algorithm? Seems utterly bizarre to me. However, they confirmed he'd submitted the readings on 1st September but still issued an estimated bill one week later for an utterly stupid figure. And then refused to deal with it via the normal channels but only via social media. It's back to front stupid. He did get it written off but has accepted that it's basically a bribe to persuade him not to trash them all over social media and the bill was for £20.20.

System

Alisdisgrace wrote: »

So an estimated bill of £126 for one week is acceptable to the algorithm? Seems utterly bizarre to me. However, they confirmed he'd submitted the readings on 1st September but still issued an estimated bill one week later for an utterly stupid figure. And then refused to deal with it via the normal channels but only via social media. It's back to front stupid. He did get it written off but has accepted that it's basically a bribe to persuade him not to trash them all over social media and the bill was for £20.20.

As an ‘oldie’, I agree that social media is not a sane way of conducting business either as a supplier or as a customer. I have seen too many instances of people posting personal/account information on webpages that anyone can read. The fact is that the ‘young uns’ seem not to be phased by doing business in such an open way. I suspect that suppliers react because they don’t like to see their customer service failings in lights on a site read by so many.

Alisdisgrace

Well quite. But they seem to be losing sight of the fact that, had they dealt with his query in a normal, sane manner, there would have been no need to discuss their service on such a public site. They seem to be working from a position of "how can we minimise the damage" rather than "how can we operate so that we don't cause any damage".

AndyPK

are you sure the £126 doesn't cover the previous period too?

If a bill had been generated 1 week ago, they wouldn't have taken that DD out yet, and hence created a bill with the last bill added on too at the end

Alisdisgrace

Absolutely certain. They'd only paid a bill the week before. And they didn't pay by DD. These are students, so they'd get the money in from each resident before paying the bill. The account was in my son's name which is why he was dealing with it. He was also the last to leave the house so took the readings the day after he moved out to ensure he submitted up to date readings.

PixelPound

Maybe it is, your son gave readings, the new occupant gave readings, they didn't match or was anywhere close, so the algorithm was used based on time from when the last official reading was done. Had others moved out? When I was in a shared student house it wasn't uncommon for most to go home for the summer and only 1 stay, and so energy use from 4 during most of the year to 1 over the summer months will vary greatly, so the meter readings may seem to be too low. Did he take photo's of the meter readings?

trickytree1963

Was the previous bill based on estimates and when they gave end reads on moving out this caught up with underestimated previous bills?

Cardew

Alisdisgrace wrote: »

So an estimated bill of £126 for one week is acceptable to the algorithm? Seems utterly bizarre to me. However, they confirmed he'd submitted the readings on 1st September but still issued an estimated bill one week later for an utterly stupid figure. And then refused to deal with it via the normal channels but only via social media. It's back to front stupid. He did get it written off but has accepted that it's basically a bribe to persuade him not to trash them all over social media and the bill was for £20.20.

If he submitted the previous meter reading(s) The almighty computer has obviously accepted that reading and billed him accordingly. However when it comes to a final bill the algorithm will calculate over a longer period and not accept the final readings.

I have an annex that is little used and has intermittent consumption. I have had my readings rejected and an estimated reading 2 kWh higher substituted.

I returned some building materials to my local building supplier. I have in front of me a Visa Credit slip for £217,927.82. Sadly despite my protestations it was cancelled - it is what computers do!!

Incidentally I would get your son to ensure he has it IN WRITING that the bill is written off. We have many cases of matters apparently solved and a year or two later The Computer passes bills, that it 'thinks' are still outstanding, to a debt collection agency.

Alisdisgrace

All residents had moved out and no new tenants had moved in when he took the readings. He submitted them on 2nd September having taken them on 1st. EDF insisted he'd submitted them on 1st - why we have no idea. But it was evidence they'd had the readings yet issued an estimated bill a week later and then refused to input his readings because he'd ended the contract. Seems a bizarre way to conduct business, especially when you consider that they acted properly as soon as it took his issue to Twitter :wall: