MSE News: Surge in energy firms switching people onto prepay meters remotely – your rights

EssexHebridean

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

[Deleted User]

Oops, my finger slipped, there goes your electric?

[Deleted User]

Mrs_Gardener said:

I have not got a smart meter due to a clause I saw in the EON contract from 2019 "If you’ve got a smart meter, we can disconnect the energy without visiting your property. For any other kind of meter, you’d have to give us access to it. If you don’t, we might have to get a warrant and we’ll charge you for that." I didn't want to take a chance of someone making an error and cutting me off - it was just the worry about human error that bothered me as I have always managed to pay my gas and electricity bills, but I feel so sorry for the people struggling to pay and now the energy companies can change their meters to pre-pay without the need to go to court and get a warrant. No system is infallible so there is always a risk that the change to pre-pay or disconnection could happen to a customer who owed nothing.

The following is from the latest annual Consumer Protection Report written by Ofgem. Apart from the fact that Ofgem now sees energy companies as being more akin to debt counsellors than energy suppliers, the Report does not contain some interesting information. Not least, the following:

Disconnection for debt

3.25. The number of disconnections for debt declined in 2020. The number of disconnections for debt dropped to 1 disconnection for gas. For the first time since we started recording SOR data, there have been no disconnections for debt of a customers’ electricity supply, continuing a declining trend since 2016.

Yes, smart meters have remote disconnection built into them to enable suppliers to offer power-limited tariffs as is the case in many other countries. For example, the consumer agrees to a power limit of, say, 5kW at certain times of very high demand. By agreeing to this power limit, the consumer gets a cheaper tariff than his/her next door neighbour who agrees to a 10kW power limit.

If the agreed power limit is exceeded, then the consumer gets warnings via the In House Display; texts; emails  etc. If power is not reduced, then the supply will be cut off. Power is reconnected by contacting a dedicated National phone line. Frequent power limit breaches will result in the consumer being moved to a more expensive higher power limit tariff.

grn99

More up-to-date stats from ofgem. These figures do not include so-called "self disconnects".

deano2099

EssexHebridean said:

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

I'm mostly on board with you on this but I don't think we can dismiss the other side of the argument entirely. I think there's definitely a point to be made that if an energy company need to apply for a warrant to get access to cut someone off, they will likely make absolutely sure they're got it right. And the cost of getting such a warrant would make it an action of last resort.
There is potential that by simply making it easier, energy companies get more careless. I don't know enough about what the regulatory process is around disconnections, as long as it's sufficient there shouldn't be a problem, but if the fairness in that system has rested somewhat on the fact that for most people, there'd be a point where a warrant was needed, it may need revising.

The flip side of course is that as long as people are just put on pre-pay rather than disconnected, for someone who can afford the bill, and that's just happened erroneously, it shouldn't be a major inconvenience. They can just prepay a few months while it gets sorted out. Though again, there should be basic safeguarding and penalties in place there. eg. if a consumer is switched to pre-pay erroneously and their complaint is upheld by the ombudsman, they're switched back and refunded the entire cost of the electric/gas used in the period they were switched.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the tech *can be abused*. But the solution isn't "don't have the tech" it's "have the legal and regulatory systems in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen".

What often happens is those concerned fight *against* the tech, rather than *for* regulation. And the tech goes through because time marches on and it always does, but the regulation isn't in place because everyone on both sides spent all their energy arguing over if the tech should be allowed in the first place.

[Deleted User]

deano2099 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

I'm mostly on board with you on this but I don't think we can dismiss the other side of the argument entirely. I think there's definitely a point to be made that if an energy company need to apply for a warrant to get access to cut someone off, they will likely make absolutely sure they're got it right. And the cost of getting such a warrant would make it an action of last resort.
There is potential that by simply making it easier, energy companies get more careless. I don't know enough about what the regulatory process is around disconnections, as long as it's sufficient there shouldn't be a problem, but if the fairness in that system has rested somewhat on the fact that for most people, there'd be a point where a warrant was needed, it may need revising.

The flip side of course is that as long as people are just put on pre-pay rather than disconnected, for someone who can afford the bill, and that's just happened erroneously, it shouldn't be a major inconvenience. They can just prepay a few months while it gets sorted out. Though again, there should be basic safeguarding and penalties in place there. eg. if a consumer is switched to pre-pay erroneously and their complaint is upheld by the ombudsman, they're switched back and refunded the entire cost of the electric/gas used in the period they were switched.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the tech *can be abused*. But the solution isn't "don't have the tech" it's "have the legal and regulatory systems in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen".

What often happens is those concerned fight *against* the tech, rather than *for* regulation. And the tech goes through because time marches on and it always does, but the regulation isn't in place because everyone on both sides spent all their energy arguing over if the tech should be allowed in the first place.

That's just wishing for penalties for the sake of it.  There shouldn't suddenly start to be schemes of punitive justice.

ariarnia

[Deleted User] said:

deano2099 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

I'm mostly on board with you on this but I don't think we can dismiss the other side of the argument entirely. I think there's definitely a point to be made that if an energy company need to apply for a warrant to get access to cut someone off, they will likely make absolutely sure they're got it right. And the cost of getting such a warrant would make it an action of last resort.
There is potential that by simply making it easier, energy companies get more careless. I don't know enough about what the regulatory process is around disconnections, as long as it's sufficient there shouldn't be a problem, but if the fairness in that system has rested somewhat on the fact that for most people, there'd be a point where a warrant was needed, it may need revising.

The flip side of course is that as long as people are just put on pre-pay rather than disconnected, for someone who can afford the bill, and that's just happened erroneously, it shouldn't be a major inconvenience. They can just prepay a few months while it gets sorted out. Though again, there should be basic safeguarding and penalties in place there. eg. if a consumer is switched to pre-pay erroneously and their complaint is upheld by the ombudsman, they're switched back and refunded the entire cost of the electric/gas used in the period they were switched.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the tech *can be abused*. But the solution isn't "don't have the tech" it's "have the legal and regulatory systems in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen".

What often happens is those concerned fight *against* the tech, rather than *for* regulation. And the tech goes through because time marches on and it always does, but the regulation isn't in place because everyone on both sides spent all their energy arguing over if the tech should be allowed in the first place.

That's just wishing for penalties for the sake of it.  There shouldn't suddenly start to be schemes of punitive justice.

and i think its fair to say if someone is accedentally cut off or switched to pre pay and it takes months to sort (not just a phone call for someone to look at the account and see the mistake) then the ombudsman would award compensation and the energy company would be out of pocket for the costs anyway. 

deano2099

[Deleted User] said:

deano2099 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

I'm mostly on board with you on this but I don't think we can dismiss the other side of the argument entirely. I think there's definitely a point to be made that if an energy company need to apply for a warrant to get access to cut someone off, they will likely make absolutely sure they're got it right. And the cost of getting such a warrant would make it an action of last resort.
There is potential that by simply making it easier, energy companies get more careless. I don't know enough about what the regulatory process is around disconnections, as long as it's sufficient there shouldn't be a problem, but if the fairness in that system has rested somewhat on the fact that for most people, there'd be a point where a warrant was needed, it may need revising.

The flip side of course is that as long as people are just put on pre-pay rather than disconnected, for someone who can afford the bill, and that's just happened erroneously, it shouldn't be a major inconvenience. They can just prepay a few months while it gets sorted out. Though again, there should be basic safeguarding and penalties in place there. eg. if a consumer is switched to pre-pay erroneously and their complaint is upheld by the ombudsman, they're switched back and refunded the entire cost of the electric/gas used in the period they were switched.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the tech *can be abused*. But the solution isn't "don't have the tech" it's "have the legal and regulatory systems in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen".

What often happens is those concerned fight *against* the tech, rather than *for* regulation. And the tech goes through because time marches on and it always does, but the regulation isn't in place because everyone on both sides spent all their energy arguing over if the tech should be allowed in the first place.

That's just wishing for penalties for the sake of it.  There shouldn't suddenly start to be schemes of punitive justice.

Interesting. You're arguing that those sort of mistakes are extremely uncommon and unlikely, so why be opposed to a penalty if they're so vanishingly rare?

EssexHebridean

deano2099 said:

Deleted_User said:

deano2099 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Has anyone ever made an error and applied for a warrant to gain access to cut you off Mrs_Gardener? Or indeed, so you know anyone to whom that has happened erroneously? I'm absolutely certain I don't. And I'd be very much surprised if anyone else on here knew of a situation where that had happened, either.  The point being, that it's incredibly unlikely that "an error would be made" that lead to a customer being disconnected! 

I'm mostly on board with you on this but I don't think we can dismiss the other side of the argument entirely. I think there's definitely a point to be made that if an energy company need to apply for a warrant to get access to cut someone off, they will likely make absolutely sure they're got it right. And the cost of getting such a warrant would make it an action of last resort.
There is potential that by simply making it easier, energy companies get more careless. I don't know enough about what the regulatory process is around disconnections, as long as it's sufficient there shouldn't be a problem, but if the fairness in that system has rested somewhat on the fact that for most people, there'd be a point where a warrant was needed, it may need revising.

The flip side of course is that as long as people are just put on pre-pay rather than disconnected, for someone who can afford the bill, and that's just happened erroneously, it shouldn't be a major inconvenience. They can just prepay a few months while it gets sorted out. Though again, there should be basic safeguarding and penalties in place there. eg. if a consumer is switched to pre-pay erroneously and their complaint is upheld by the ombudsman, they're switched back and refunded the entire cost of the electric/gas used in the period they were switched.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the tech *can be abused*. But the solution isn't "don't have the tech" it's "have the legal and regulatory systems in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen".

What often happens is those concerned fight *against* the tech, rather than *for* regulation. And the tech goes through because time marches on and it always does, but the regulation isn't in place because everyone on both sides spent all their energy arguing over if the tech should be allowed in the first place.

That's just wishing for penalties for the sake of it.  There shouldn't suddenly start to be schemes of punitive justice.

Interesting. You're arguing that those sort of mistakes are extremely uncommon and unlikely, so why be opposed to a penalty if they're so vanishingly rare?

There IS a penalty if someone goes to the Ombudsman as would happen in a case like that though - the supplier would almost certainly be expected to put the customer back to the place they would have been at financially if the mistake had not occurred (so in the example given for example, crediting back any increased costs incurred) and there will also be compensation awarded - my recent case against UW found me £75 better off at the end of the process thanks to that, and that in spite of the fact that I stated at the outset that I was not expecting any compensation. 

ariarnia

and as far as i know the cost of the ombudsman process it paid by the supplier even if the customer doesn't win. so i think thats £500 for escalating a case and the ombudsman having to decide if they dont agree during the process?