Smart meters on the News - Being switched to prepayment without notice.

deano2099

[Deleted User] said:

Wasn't that the Northern Rock thing?  A "run on the bank" because people thought you might not be able to withdraw deposits?

There are certainly arguments for the energy account as bank account comparison.

Yeah and certain banks were bailed out by the government in the same way energy companies were. I believe as a result of that regulations around that sector were tightened considerably. I'm not aware if regulations around energy companies are as stringent, but I'd suspect not. Indeed, I genuinely straight up don't believe that energy companies using credit built up on customer accounts to speculate on the energy market was ever something intended by the regulator. Rather an unintended consequence.
(I don't know that for sure though)

[Deleted User]

deano2099 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Wasn't that the Northern Rock thing?  A "run on the bank" because people thought you might not be able to withdraw deposits?

There are certainly arguments for the energy account as bank account comparison.

Yeah and certain banks were bailed out by the government in the same way energy companies were. I believe as a result of that regulations around that sector were tightened considerably. I'm not aware if regulations around energy companies are as stringent, but I'd suspect not. Indeed, I genuinely straight up don't believe that energy companies using credit built up on customer accounts to speculate on the energy market was ever something intended by the regulator. Rather an unintended consequence.
(I don't know that for sure though)

There is the specific SoLR scheme to protect 100% of customer deposits of all sizes - this is comparable to the bank deposit protection scheme I would suggest.

There certainly was a push towards better use of the energy market to hedge and bring prices down, but this has the side-effect of having the converse risk of poor speculation pushing prices up (or pushing suppliers out of business - which it did).

Chrysalis

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

Notice isnt the issue here, its the bypass of legal process.

There is no bypass of a legal process, there is no legal process required. In theory there was never a legal process to fit a physical pre-payment meter either, the court order was for access to the premises to fit the meter, it was not permission to fit the meter itself which is not required.

Chrysalis said:

Of course preventative actions are always preferable, but what happens here?  Fixed DD system allows debt to be built up quite easy.  The only preventative action I can think of as a short term measure is requiring a good credit history to be on fixed DD billing, or to restrict fixed DD to a very low debt balance at which point action is taken at a much earlier stage.  

Preventative action in the short term would be submitting regular meter readings or having a smart meter report readings correlated against Direct Debits (things like EDF's 6 month billing cycle make that somewhat problematic), whole month billing/variable Direct Debit also solve the issue, although with seasonal fluctuations in bill amounts being difficult for some people.

There is a balance between not allowing customers to get into debt and also not requiring them to carry too much of a credit, the problem is it can be difficult for the suppliers to balance on an individual level as people are changing usage patterns, but they generally cannot win, people whinge if they get into debt, they also whinge if they have a large credit balance and they seem to whinge even more when they cannot understand that energy prices have gone up and that means that their monthly Direct Debit has to go up. A model which was pay monthly in full, or pre-pay would be the simplest overall to avoid the issues of debt or credit balances, unfortunately it also introduces other issues, hence the lack of a perfect answer. 

There is people with smart meters with inaccurate billings. (although granted the bill usually been higher than the usage not lower).

Again on MSE it seems there is assumptions been made about the suppliers (they are never wrong).  A lot of people seem to be affiliated to the suppliers on here?

If the court process is just for access to the property has a judge ever denied that permission?

I have a family member who has convinced her supplier to set a DD lower than her usage on the basis she cant afford to pay for her usage and they did it, so yes this can happen on fixed DD billings with actual meter readings provided.  It can also happen if usage suddenly increases on fixed meter billing as fixed DD doesnt adapt to higher usage until a year later.

Chrysalis

[Deleted User] said:

Chrysalis said:

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

Notice isnt the issue here, its the bypass of legal process.

Of course preventative actions are always preferable, but what happens here?  Fixed DD system allows debt to be built up quite easy.  The only preventative action I can think of as a short term measure is requiring a good credit history to be on fixed DD billing, or to restrict fixed DD to a very low debt balance at which point action is taken at a much earlier stage.  

Well the thread title specifically said “without notice”, but ok, your argument might be different.

Most people with fixed DD appear to complain about building up too much credit, not easily building up debt.

I’m not sure how an alternative billing method solves the issue either. If there are no readings, there is still bill shock, and if someone isn’t paying their bill there is still debt.

I ask again, is there actually anyone who this has been applied to in the way that has been claimed (no notice / without warning / without any process) - all reports suggest not.

Fair question, of course it shouldnt be happening at all, but there is probably other things that have been tried and failed before a prepay is fitted in many cases, one person on the BBC article claimed her attempts to offer payments were ignored though, if true thats a failure in the process, Ofgem has also already accepted the processes in play are not what they should be. 

chris_n

Chrysalis said:

Fair question, of course it shouldnt be happening at all, but there is probably other things that have been tried and failed before a prepay is fitted in many cases, one person on the BBC article claimed her attempts to offer payments were ignored though, if true thats a failure in the process, Ofgem has also already accepted the processes in play are not what they should be. 

Probably because the payments they offered were too low to ever clear the debt.

Chrysalis

chris_n said:

Chrysalis said:

Fair question, of course it shouldnt be happening at all, but there is probably other things that have been tried and failed before a prepay is fitted in many cases, one person on the BBC article claimed her attempts to offer payments were ignored though, if true thats a failure in the process, Ofgem has also already accepted the processes in play are not what they should be. 

Probably because the payments they offered were too low to ever clear the debt.

A responsible lender, accepts any payments as its better than nothing.  But I guess if you have an assurance you can force it back via a prepay there is no need to bother.

However what I will say is you made an assumption saying probably, we dont know that until someone confirms it.  The person said they were ignored rather than declined.  I can relate to that as I have contacted Octopus several times for various things with no reply.

[Deleted User]

Chrysalis said:

chris_n said:

Chrysalis said:

Fair question, of course it shouldnt be happening at all, but there is probably other things that have been tried and failed before a prepay is fitted in many cases, one person on the BBC article claimed her attempts to offer payments were ignored though, if true thats a failure in the process, Ofgem has also already accepted the processes in play are not what they should be. 

Probably because the payments they offered were too low to ever clear the debt.

A responsible lender, accepts any payments as its better than nothing.  But I guess if you have an assurance you can force it back via a prepay there is no need to bother.

However what I will say is you made an assumption saying probably, we dont know that until someone confirms it.  The person said they were ignored rather than declined.  I can relate to that as I have contacted Octopus several times for various things with no reply.

And I think you've hit the biggest general problem - it's not the processes themselves, or the results of the processes, these can be easily fixed.

It's the difficulty in two-way communication.  Easy enough for a supplier to tell you stuff - and they don't always manage that.  Much harder to make them listen to you, and even worse to make them act on what you say sometimes.

Chrysalis

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

chris_n said:

Chrysalis said:

Fair question, of course it shouldnt be happening at all, but there is probably other things that have been tried and failed before a prepay is fitted in many cases, one person on the BBC article claimed her attempts to offer payments were ignored though, if true thats a failure in the process, Ofgem has also already accepted the processes in play are not what they should be. 

Probably because the payments they offered were too low to ever clear the debt.

A responsible lender, accepts any payments as its better than nothing.  But I guess if you have an assurance you can force it back via a prepay there is no need to bother.

However what I will say is you made an assumption saying probably, we dont know that until someone confirms it.  The person said they were ignored rather than declined.  I can relate to that as I have contacted Octopus several times for various things with no reply.

And I think you've hit the biggest general problem - it's not the processes themselves, or the results of the processes, these can be easily fixed.

It's the difficulty in two-way communication.  Easy enough for a supplier to tell you stuff - and they don't always manage that.  Much harder to make them listen to you, and even worse to make them act on what you say sometimes.

That does seem the issue here, supplier should have explained we expect this amount to be paid to continue your current billing plan, if you cannot meet this we will have to move you to prepay, and then give a date for when the move occurs, alongside with any info on how much money is taken for paying the debt etc. As well as suggestions on who the person can contact for financial advice/support etc. I think that combined with systems in place to prevent debt getting too big is perhaps a way forward. I do accept what you said on the court process (for entry not permission to change meter), and that the problem might not be widespread. So its best really just to play safe on communication.

EssexHebridean

Chrysalis said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

Notice isnt the issue here, its the bypass of legal process.

There is no bypass of a legal process, there is no legal process required. In theory there was never a legal process to fit a physical pre-payment meter either, the court order was for access to the premises to fit the meter, it was not permission to fit the meter itself which is not required.

Chrysalis said:

Of course preventative actions are always preferable, but what happens here?  Fixed DD system allows debt to be built up quite easy.  The only preventative action I can think of as a short term measure is requiring a good credit history to be on fixed DD billing, or to restrict fixed DD to a very low debt balance at which point action is taken at a much earlier stage.  

Preventative action in the short term would be submitting regular meter readings or having a smart meter report readings correlated against Direct Debits (things like EDF's 6 month billing cycle make that somewhat problematic), whole month billing/variable Direct Debit also solve the issue, although with seasonal fluctuations in bill amounts being difficult for some people.

There is a balance between not allowing customers to get into debt and also not requiring them to carry too much of a credit, the problem is it can be difficult for the suppliers to balance on an individual level as people are changing usage patterns, but they generally cannot win, people whinge if they get into debt, they also whinge if they have a large credit balance and they seem to whinge even more when they cannot understand that energy prices have gone up and that means that their monthly Direct Debit has to go up. A model which was pay monthly in full, or pre-pay would be the simplest overall to avoid the issues of debt or credit balances, unfortunately it also introduces other issues, hence the lack of a perfect answer. 

Again on MSE it seems there is assumptions been made about the suppliers (they are never wrong).  A lot of people affiliated to the suppliers on here.

That’s interesting - could you name some of them and explain their links please, as I was under the impression that the standard forum protocol was that if there was a possible conflict of interest users were encouraged to note that in their signature - I’d say that someone “affiliated” (so what - getting financial kickbacks aside from the standard referral links that a lot of us would have benefited from here and there?) would definitely count as a conflict of interest if not mentioned! 

Chrysalis

I should have said seem to be, its normally though that if they are resistant to changes been made to improve the industry and have more than what is expected of public knowledge of how the suppliers work (internal processes).  I think someone did declare he used to work for the grid.