Smart meter fiddle by new energy supplier?

Shoddie

Hi @QrizB.  I found a couple of errors in the table and I had forgotten that I had named Utility Warehouse as the current supplier after the ombudsman had made their decision.  Here's the corrected table:

• 08-11-2018 Ebico (22-01-2020): Day - 418.8, Night - 347.6.
• 07-11-2019 Ebico (22-01-2020): Day - 867.8, Night - 2688.6.
• 19-11-2020 BG (19-11-2020): Day - 1120, Night - 3417, readings taken over from Ebico.
• 11-08-2021 BG (25-11-2021): Day - 1512, Night - 3941.
• 16-01-2022 BG (02-02-2022): Day - 1791 (E), Night - 4461 (E), original readings at transfer to UW.
• 16-01-2022 BG (25-06-2022**): Day - 1774 (E), Night - 4393 (E), revised readings at transfer to UW.**
• 17-01-2022 UW (07-02-2022): Day* - 4461, Night* - 1791, original readings taken over from BG.
• 17-01-2022 UW (17-08-2022**): Day* - 4393, Night* - 1774, revised readings taken over from BG.**
• 31-01-2022 UW (07-02-2022): Day* - 4520, Night - 4409 (E?), original readings used to raise first bill.
• 31-07-2022 UW (17-08-2022): Day* - 4600, Night* - 2581.
• 31-07-2023 UW (07-08-2023): Day* - 4936, Night* - 3957.
• 31-07-2024 UW (07-08-2024): Day* - 5402, Night* - 4110.

* The day and night totals here are mixed since UW exchanged the functions of the registers.

** The last BG bill dated 25-06-2022 was raised much later and backdated. It reflects the new starting totals that appeared on UW's corrected bill of 17-08-2022 but it doesn't reflect the UW's assertion that BG had accepted that the higher figure was for the day rate.

I accepted BG's optimistic estimates and these were what UW used to generate the first bill.  These were their starting point, but when they read the meter, the figures were reversed because they had reversed the functions of the two registers.  As a result I was charged a fortune for the day rate unit and UW, presumably, estimated the night reading as their reading from the smart meter would have been below the agreed starting value from BG:

Later, UW seem to have agreed slightly less optimistic estimates with BG but BG never produced a bill with the day and night usages reversed.  No doubt, they are waiting for me to pay UW so they can hit me with another revised bill.

My understanding is that suppliers can change the function of registers but not the accumulated totals.  UW's insistence that what I've concluded along with gaslighting from ombudsman both saying it's "impossible to exchange the registers" has convinced me that UW are on a nice little earner and the word's gone out to "under no circumstances admit to the mistake".  I think a lot of people put in the same position as me would end up accepting the bill and pay out a large sum which represents pure profit to the supplier.  This is why I don't want to let it go.

As regards the "the mysterious third party", I've tried searching the web for a simple explanation for how things are settled between the generators and the retailers without much in the way of success.

Shoddie

Hi @Gerry1.  I'm pretty certain that Ofgem will have looked into this issue and, after careful research, decided that "no further action" would require the least effort!

brianposter

Can we see the ombudsmans justification for their position.

Gerry1

@Shoddie I doubt that Ofgem would even think of it in a million years !

matt_drummer

Shoddie said:

I think a lot of people put in the same position as me would end up accepting the bill and pay out a large sum which represents pure profit to the supplier.  This is why I don't want to let it go.

As regards the "the mysterious third party", I've tried searching the web for a simple explanation for how things are settled between the generators and the retailers without much in the way of success.

Do you think that is true?

As far as I understand things, and it makes sense if you think about it, energy retailers can only buy what they have sold.

They don't have a stock of electricity that they have bought and then sell.

They only know what they have bought by measuring what they have sold.

And they measure what they have sold using meters installed at their customers properties.

It can't be pure profit because UW will have had to declare what they have charged you to generators and distributors and pay the appropriate amount for what they have sold to you.

Of course, it's more complicated than that, but electricity is not branded or owned by any particular retailer until they have sold it to a customer. 

My Octopus electricity comes from the same place as my neighbours from BG or another from EDF etc etc

Octopus know how much electricity I have bought and when I bought it. Octopus charge me and then tell the generating and distribution companies what they have bought to supply me.

I don't think UW are on the fiddle, they may or may not be correct, I don't know, but I am pretty sure there's no free money for them here. In fact, it's probably costing them more to sort out than they ever made from it.

Ildhund

Shoddie said:

As regards the "the mysterious third party", I've tried searching the web for a simple explanation for how things are settled between the generators and the retailers without much in the way of success.

You sure you want to know?
The Electricity Trading Arrangements - A Beginner's Guide - Elexon Digital BSC 

Shoddie

Hi @brianposter.  The original investigating officer stated:

"This is further confirmed on the evidence provided by Utility Warehouse that shows it was the start readings provided by British Gas of day 1791 and night 4461. The start readings were the cause for the large bill as they were the wrong way round.

I would further state when Utility Warehouse actioned the tariff change on your meter this would not cause the meter readings to turn the wrong way round, this is historical and could have happened at your transfer from Robin Hood."

I appealed this decision and the second investigating officer stated:

"I would also like to make it clear that it is not possible for a supplier to change the rates on your meter. As such, Utility Warehouse would not have physically been able to change your R1 register and R2 register around."

The relentless gaslighting along the lines of "this isn't possible" began to make me doubt my judgement so I contacted the meter manufacturer and asked them if it was possible and they confirmed that, yes, it was entirely possible.  I can't find a way of attaching a .pdf so I'll try and post the full text of the original and appeal decisions in a following post.

Shoddie

Hi @brianposter.  Here's the original decisions pasted from ombudsman's site:

"Original decision
Issue 1
Issue type: BILLING - Incorrect opening/closing meter readings
Issue analysis:

You’ve contacted Ombudsman Services Energy because you’re unhappy with the service you have received from Utility Warehouse.

You state that when Utility Warehouse has taken over your supply from British Gas, they have flipped the meter readings on your smart meter incorrectly when actioning the tariff change.

The supplier states that they have received your meter readings when they got permission to control your meter and the readings that were received at the start of the supply were transposed.

You explain within the casefile that you transferred your utilities to Utility Warehouse however when they took over your supply and your smart meters you received a bill for £740.56. You explain that from reviewing the bills the supplier had the day and night readings the wrong way round which caused an increase in the bill.

I have reviewed the evidence provided from both yourself and the supplier and whilst I acknowledge you believe that Utility Warehouse have change the registers when they actioned the tariff change, I do not think that is the case.

You have provided a load test within the evidence that shows the readings advancing on the day rate of 4527 at 14:04 and the again 4529 14:20. Which clarifies that this is the day rate which means the reading where not changed at the supply transfer rather that British Gas have been billing you on transposed readings from the start of your supply with them.

This is further confirmed on the evidence provided by Utility Warehouse that shows it was the start readings provided by British Gas of day 1791 and night 4461. The start readings were the cause for the large bill as they were the wrong way round.

I would further state when Utility Warehouse actioned the tariff change on your meter this would not cause the meter readings to turn the wrong way round, this is historical and could have happened at your transfer from Robin Hood.

I have reviewed the billing of the account and the Utility Warehouse have now billed you with the correct start reading of 4409 day and 1791 billing up to the most accurate reading of day 4531 and night 2427.

Having reviewed this I am satisfied that the supplier has billed you correctly and accurately with the meter readings the right way round as confirmed in your load test.

I note you have advised within the casefile that you request Utility Warehouse to ensure you do not receive any amended bill from British Gas. However I must advise that they had to reagree the meter readings with British Gas as this is an industry process suppliers must follow, and British Gas will need to investigate the billing of your account further but this would not be the responsibility of utility Warehouse and you will need to take this up direct with British Gas.

You explained when we spoke that you also requested a subject access request from the supplier to enable you to review all your interactions with them however, they have yet to supply you with this.

As discussed, I can confirm that contacting the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) regarding this is the best practice as they are the only ones who are able to address issues relating to personal data.

Outcome: Upheld
Issue 2
Issue type: CUSTOMER SERVICE - Quality of customer service
Issue analysis:

You have encountered shortfalls in service and although we would expect all energy suppliers to provide the best service possible, shortfalls in service do occur. We are unable to request energy suppliers change their systems or the way they handle customer service issues for individual instances of poor customer service.

However, we would expect the energy suppliers to learn and improve with each complaint it receives. I would note that you have contacted the supplier numerous times and received the same response each time which has caused great frustration and delays in resolving the matter for you.  You have also shown evidence of the supplier not responding to your queries in a timely manner.

I have considered the time spent putting things right, along with the inconvenience and any distress this complaint has caused.

In resolution to this aspect of your complaint, I agree with the suppliers offer of an apology coupled with a goodwill payment of £100.00 to recognise the problems caused. To clarify, our awards are only acknowledgements of the shortfall in service and we require energy suppliers to make the payments as goodwill gestures. The goodwill awards offered are in no way a punishment or punitive action on an energy supplier, as this type of action is outside our remit.

Outcome: Upheld
Conclusion

After careful consideration of the evidence, my investigation has concluded. As stated above whilst I acknowledge that you believed Utility Warehouse has changed the meter readings on your meter when they updated the tariff for you however this is not possible. All the supplier has done when they received permission to control the meter is set the tariff rate for you. It is not possible for them to change the readings and I believe this has been transposed with your previous supplier British Gas.

Utility Warehouse have now shown evidence that they have billed your account correctly and I am satisfied this is a true reflection of your usage.  

In relation to the service, you have received and the time and trouble this has caused I think the suppliers offer of an apology coupled with a good will gesture of £100.00 is a fair and reasonable resolve.

If you have any questions, please contact me on [Removed by Forum Team] or send me a message and I will aim to respond to you within one working day, please note this may take a longer if out the office. If you are considering challenging the decision, please contact me directly beforehand, so I can obtain a better understanding of what aspects of the decision you do not agree with.

To be clear whilst you can challenge our decision if you choose to do this you will need to be able to show that a significant error has been made in the facts which makes a material difference or share new evidence (with clear reason as to why this evidence was not submitted earlier).

To confirm a challenge is not a negotiation. We have conducted a full investigation into your complaint based on the evidence you and the supplier provided, and our knowledge and experience regarding the rules and practices within the industry.

Please note, it is not within the Ombudsman Services remit to inform a supplier of how they will complete the remedy only that they must be completed within 28 days.

Outcome: Maintained
Remedy 1

Remedy: Action
Comment:

send an apology for the shortfalls in customer service

Remedy 2

Remedy: Goodwill

Value £: 100.00
Comment:

to be sent directly to (Removed by Forum Team)

Decided by (Removed by Forum Team) (os-investigative-officer) on 05 Oct 2022 at 17:28"

Shoddie

Hi @brianposter.  Here's the appeal pasted from ombudsman's site:

"Final decision

Issue 1
Issue type: BACKBILLING - Transposed meter readings
Issue analysis:



My name is [removed by Forum Team] and I am the Investigation Officer assigned to this appeal.

You  have appealed our original decision dated 05 October 2022 as you disagree with our response and you have provided the following points of appeal –

What was the factual error?

I was unable to select "Significant New Supporting Information", "Factual Error" and "Not listed" though all three apply.

In my opinion, the evidence that I provided was conclusive.  The heating system in the house was designed to use electricity to heat a thermal store overnight for use during the day.  This resulted in the night usage being consistently higher than during the day.  This was my experience from the outset and born out by the British Gas bills included in the evidence I uploaded.

When UW (the supplier) took control of the meter they uploaded the tariffs and, presumably, the times of day for recording uasge for the operation of the two registers.  All the evidence points to the fact that when they did this, they set up IMP-R01 to record daytime usage and IMP-R02 to record usage overnight.  This was clearly opposite to the way they had been before which mean't that day time usage was being added to the previous off peak total and vice versa.  It was a simple mistake which could easily have been corrected.  It was UW's refusal to admit their mistake and to address the problem that has created the long running dispute.

I can't see any evidence to support another explanation.  UW haven't presented an alternative narrative or any evidence that contradicts my reasonably detailed and consistent explanation of the sequence of events.  They've been consistent in insisting that British Gas got the readings the wrong way round.  They claim that British Gas have accepted this but they've provided no evidence to support this in either case.  I spoke to British Gas today and they knew nothing of the the revised readings and told me there was nothing new to pay on the account.  I've sent them UW's letter and asked them to investigate further.  The meter was originally installed by Utilita and was being used as a prepayment meter until British Gas took over.  This meant we weren't paying actual bills.  I have managed to find one bill from Ebico / Robin Hood which bears out the bias towards night usage.  This is attached (Ebico-Bill-2020-01-22.pdf).  I can solicit more bills if you feel this necessary to support my case.

Why does the factual error make a difference?

When the investigator called me ahead of her adjudication, it took me a while to get my brain in gear as I hadn't looked at the case for some time.  We were also fighting with a slightly defective phone system.  I am, however pretty certain that I didn't state that "Utility Warehouse .... flipped the meter readings" as the investigator states at the start of her decision.  I could certainly have said that they had exchanged the functions of the two registers but, rightly or wrongly, my understanding is that suppliers can't modify the accumulated totals on the meters and I have been at pains to avoid stating this.  Just to clarify the point, I would appreciate a copy of the recording of the conversation.  It could be set by email or posted in the evidence / messages.  This will save me the trouble of issuing yet another subject access request.

The investigating officer seems to have started with the assumption that the supplier couldn't possibly have made a mistake.  The decision, to make sense, implied that the British Gas bills that I had provided in support of my case, and all previous bills, were substantially incorrect.  If she had doubts about the bill, she should have raised this with me ahead of her decision so that I could seek clarification and obtain further evidence.

One statement in the decision could be relevant - "I would further state when Utility Warehouse actioned the tariff change on your meter this would not cause the meter readings to turn the wrong way round, this is historical and could have happened at your transfer from Robin Hood."  I originally read it as a humorous reference to the days when naughty electricians could make the discs in the electromechanical meters spin backwards.  It may refer to something real and recent but, as it wasn't presented in the evidence, it shouldn't have been considered relevant.

I can only conclude that the investigator based her conclusion on evidence that I wasn't party to or that the practice is to always to  support the supplier except in cases where overwhelming evidence demands the contrary.  I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that Ombudsman Services is funded by the suppliers who have an expectation of preferment.

I have attached my email to British Gas (EmailToBritishGas-2022-10-18.pdf).  Please read it as it will explain why I am continuing to fight this.

I’ve reviewed the original decision and carefully considered the appeal points raised and my final response to the appeal is below.

I would like to begin by that if you do wish to receive a copy of the call recording that took place between yourself and Michelle then you would need to submit a Subject Access Request to our customer service team as this is not something that I am able to do for you as an Investigation Officer.

With regards to the comment made by Michelle whereby she stated “Utility Warehouse flipped the meter readings”. She did not say that this was something you said over the phone and instead, it was her determination of the issues you raised. To explain, your complaint details have suggested that you believe that there is a transposed readings issue or in other words, the readings have been flipped around. So, Michelle has simply taken what you have said and reworded it in a less complex form.

I would also like to make it clear that it is not possible for a supplier to change the rates on your meter. As such, Utility Warehouse would not have physically been able to change your R1 register and R2 register around.

You have provided a video of your meter which shows that your readings as of 10 March 2022 whereby you stated that your R2 is usually your day rate which had a reading of 2029.8 and your R1 is usually your night reading which had a reading of 4453.

The readings used by Utility Warehouse to open your energy account as of 17 January 2022 were:

Day: 1791
Night: 4461

You believe that they should be the other way round.

In February 2022, they state that your readings were:

Day: 4409
Night: 4520

On 09 March 2022, you provided Utility Warehouse with readings of:

Day: 4448
Night: 1993

This shows that you believe that they have your readings the wrong way round.

The evidence provided by Utility Warehouse shows that as of 31 August 2022, you had been billed to:

Day: 4623
Night: 2673

When we consider the readings they have used, and compare them to what is shown on your meter, it does show that there is a current transposed readings issue.

I understand that Utility Warehouse have issued a bill which shows that they have resolved the transposed readings issue however, they have not manually changed the reading registers nor have they manually reissued a bill and instead, they have added the readings for day and night onto different registers which has caused for credit billing to happen, but this ultimately does not resolve the overall billing showing that they are using the wrong readings for the wrong rates.

As such, I find it reasonable that Utility Warehouse should carry out the following action:

Issue a manual bill from 17 January 2022 using a day reading of 4461 and a night reading of 1791 to 31 August 2022 using a day reading of 2673 and a night reading of 4623.

By creating a manual bill in this manner, it avoids the confusion that they have caused by issuing a bill where they have changed the readings, but not the registers associated with those readings and when they done this, it caused for the credit to only account for the differences between the day and night readings and did not actually correctly rebill the readings to their correct registers and unit rates.

I also believe that this is not only going to correct any current confusion, but it will also avid further confusion and will ultimately, bring this matter to an end.

Having said that, I would also like to address your comment whereby you stated:

“I can only conclude that the investigator based her conclusion on evidence that I wasn't party to or that the practice is to always to  support the supplier except in cases where overwhelming evidence demands the contrary.  I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that Ombudsman Services is funded by the suppliers who have an expectation of preferment.”

Ombudsman Services: Energy is a free to use service for consumers who have ongoing complaints with an energy supplier of which that energy supplier has failed to resolve. We are an impartial dispute resolution service which means that we do not take sides of neither the consumer nor the supplier. Instead, our role is to investigate complaints based on the evidence that we have received, and provide an appropriate outcome whereby those issues are resolved, if possible.

We charge a fee to the supplier to cover the costs of managing the case and the costs for running our service. We are a not for profit organization and by charging supplier's fee's for the cases we receive, we encourage them to resolve complaints directly and much earlier as well as keeping the service free to consumers.

Following my review, I have decided that there is enough justification for amending the overall decision.

This will now be our final decision and this decision will now supersede our previous decision following this appeal review.

Outcome: Upheld
Conclusion

Following a further review on your complaint, we have decided that Utility Warehouse need to:

Issue a manual bill from 17 January 2022 using a day reading of 4461 and a night reading of 1791 to 31 August 2022 using a day reading of 2673 and a night reading of 4623.

Send an apology for the shortfalls in customer service.

Send a good will gesture of £100.00 directly to you.

Outcome: Upheld
Final Challenge Type: Factual error
Remedy 1

Remedy: Action
Comment:

Issue a manual bill from 17 January 2022 using a day reading of 4461 and a night reading of 1791 to 31 August 2022 using a day reading of 2673 and a night reading of 4623.

Remedy 2

Remedy: Action
Comment:

Send an apology for the shortfalls in customer service.

Remedy 3

Remedy: Goodwill

Value £: 100.00
Comment:

To be sent directly to (Removed by Forum Team)

Decided by (Removed by Forum Team) (os-investigative-officer) on 22 Nov 2022 at 16:04"

Shoddie

Hi @ matt_drummer.  If UW had succeeded, they'd have made their profit from converting a huge block of historical night rate units into day rate units without having to pay for any additional incoming electricity.  My guess is that the system for handover readings isn't robust.  From what I can see BG are still holding final readings that that are the opposite way round to UW's initial readings.  I tried to find out if there's an independent registry that ensures things marry up but there doesn't seem to be any.

Interestingly, as the dispute reached it's height, I moved another supply using conventional meters from UW to Octopus.  In this case the night total was considerably below the day total ... and ... guess what ... when the closing figures were sent to Octopus the day and night totals had been exchanged!  I don't know whether this was just UW attempting to wind me up or a standard way for them to exploit the weaknesses in the system.