SSE provide an apology over advertising

jacko220

MattMattMattUK said:

jacko220 said:

Exodi said:

jacko220 said:

dunstonh said:

jacko220 said:

SSE customers complain about smart meters showing 'frightening' energy bills of up to £42,000 | The Sun

Rubbish headline that does not match reality.  Headline says smart meters but article says IHDs.  It was the IHD rather than the smart meter.

Is that not really a question of semantics, 

Hardly semantics, there's a gigantic difference.

If the actual meter itself was reading that you've suddenly used 400,000+ kWh of gas, most people would be tripping over themselves in sheer terror to report what looks like an incredibly large gas leak. As you are billed on usage, most people would also be sick with fear of the £42,000 bill that they're about to receive, given that you are explicitly billed off your meter readings.

By contrast, the IHD is merely a guide. They are notoriously inaccurate, and often take months to update on rate changes. My energy provider, EON Next, puts these on their page: "The In-Home Display is designed to highlight areas of energy use (and more importantly wastage). It's not intended to replace your more accurate meter."

A lot of people, after seeing their IHD read £42,000, would be take a cursory glance at their meter, then breath easy knowing it's still reading correctly and it's an IHD glitch.

 The IHD is merely a guide, then why have it if is wrong, your last paragraph, I take a cursory glance at my meter whenever I want too, I am able to predict my energy usage for the next year, I am never far out. My light bulb is on, I know that I am consuming energy.

The more important question is, is anyone at home.

I was able to turn the lights on in the Integer house at the BRE from a distance of two miles in the last millennium at a professional conference, does this count.

SnakePlissken

MattMattMattUK said:

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

Jonboy_1984 said:

Are SSE still at this game? I had to complain several years Ago because they had taken my mobile number and started messaging regularly about smart meters despite clear no marketing choices being made…

A complaint that I felt using this data in this way without permission was non-compliant with GDPR was adhered too and stopped all further messages.

Several years ago: how is this relevant to a recent call about smart metering? Suppliers are regulated by Ofgem; they are set smart meter rollout targets and penalised if they do not achieve them, and they are required by Ofgem to engage with their customers. Most suppliers will allow an ‘opt out’ from smart metering calls for 12 months.

As they are only contacting their consumers, I fail to see how this would be a breach of GDPR if it is done in a proper way.

In GDPR data should only be kept for the time and purpose it is required for why data was stored.
Any use of stored data for other purposes is a breach.

Data used for customers should not be used for marketing purposes unless it has been previously agreed to by the person whose data is held.
The person can also change their mind on data being used for marketing at any poiny if they so choose.

If data was misused its a breach with prospect of very large fines.

A companies data protection officer will be aware of this and by law every company must have a designated data protection officer.
Larger companies or organisations may have an Information Governance team that will deal with all GDPR or Caldicott issues.

Smart meter installation is not marketing, the rollout is a regulatory requirement, therefore your argument fails at the first hurdle.

It was not an argument, though, im not sure  you appear to be trying to have one?

The OP will know if it was marketing or not.

I was pointing out the law on GDPR.

Appologies if I  offended you with my reply!

jacko220

GingerTim said:

'I am sorry you are unhappy' strikes me as a textbook non-apology!

Building Services and Equipment | Volume 1 | F. Hall | Taylor & Franci (taylorfrancis.com)

Here is a textbook you should read

GingerTim

jacko220 said:

GingerTim said:

'I am sorry you are unhappy' strikes me as a textbook non-apology!

Building Services and Equipment | Volume 1 | F. Hall | Taylor & Franci (taylorfrancis.com)

Here is a textbook you should read

I'm sure it's an excellent work in its field, but I fail to see its relevance to my comment, which was about the (in)sincerity of the supposed apology from SSE.

jacko220

GingerTim said:

jacko220 said:

GingerTim said:

'I am sorry you are unhappy' strikes me as a textbook non-apology!

Building Services and Equipment | Volume 1 | F. Hall | Taylor & Franci (taylorfrancis.com)

Here is a textbook you should read

I'm sure it's an excellent work in its field, but I fail to see its relevance to my comment, which was about the (in)sincerity of the supposed apology from SSE.

Suggest the author's name bears some relevance. Freddie's book has been used by many generations of constructors and not economists.

badmemory

The meters are certainly missold in a way.  Because the ads tell you you won't need to check your meters again.  Which would only be true if the IHD actually worked.  They used to guarantee them for a year but now don't even for a day.

[Deleted User]

badmemory said:

The meters are certainly missold in a way.  Because the ads tell you you won't need to check your meters again.  Which would only be true if the IHD actually worked.  They used to guarantee them for a year but now don't even for a day.

Sorry but what you have posted is incorrect. Suppliers have to replace IHDs that fail within the first 12 months post installation. This obligation is written in Standard Licence Conditions.

The duty to deal with IHD faults

40.16 Where:

(a) the licensee is notified that there is a fault in an In-Home Display provided at a Domestic Premises in respect of which it is the Relevant Electricity Supplier;

(b) the consequence of the fault is that the In-Home Display no longer satisfies the minimum requirements of any Version of the IHD Technical Specification with which it is required to be maintained in accordance with paragraph 40.13;

(c) the Smart Metering System at the Domestic Premises was installed:

(i) on or after the Smart Metering Designated Date; and

(ii) no more than 12 months prior to the date on which the licensee is notified of the fault; and

(d) the licensee is in its reasonable opinion satisfied that the fault in the In-Home Display is not due to a failure by the Domestic Customer to take all reasonable steps to keep the In-Home Display in good working order,

the licensee must take all reasonable steps to repair or replace the faulty In-Home Display.

That said, the supplier is NOT responsible for the Home Area Network established by the communications hub which the IHD connects with to get its data. Communications hubs are the responsibility of the DCC.

EssexHebridean

SnakePlissken said:

Dolor said:

Jonboy_1984 said:

Are SSE still at this game? I had to complain several years Ago because they had taken my mobile number and started messaging regularly about smart meters despite clear no marketing choices being made…

A complaint that I felt using this data in this way without permission was non-compliant with GDPR was adhered too and stopped all further messages.

Several years ago: how is this relevant to a recent call about smart metering? Suppliers are regulated by Ofgem; they are set smart meter rollout targets and penalised if they do not achieve them, and they are required by Ofgem to engage with their customers. Most suppliers will allow an ‘opt out’ from smart metering calls for 12 months.

As they are only contacting their consumers, I fail to see how this would be a breach of GDPR if it is done in a proper way.

In GDPR data should only be kept for the shortest time possible and only for purpose of why data was originally stored.
Any use of the stored data for other purposes is a breach.

Data used for customers should not be used for marketing purposes unless it has been previously agreed to by the person whose data is held.
The person can also change their mind on data being used for marketing at any point if they so choose.

If data was misused its a breach with prospect of very large fines.

A companies data protection officer will be aware of this and by law every company must have a designated data protection officer.
Larger companies or organisations may have an Information Governance team that will deal with all GDPR or Caldicott issues.

And this is why companies tend to contact people to ask whether they should be opted in, or out, of certain types of contact. Large companies, in particular, tend to be very careful about this. Contacts in relation to time expired meters would come outside marketing in any event as they would be considered to be essential contact. As already pointed out, the OP could have opted out of contact regarding Smart Metering until such point that it became necessary due to the time expired thing. 

jacko220 said:

GingerTim said:

jacko220 said:

GingerTim said:

'I am sorry you are unhappy' strikes me as a textbook non-apology!

Building Services and Equipment | Volume 1 | F. Hall | Taylor & Franci (taylorfrancis.com)

Here is a textbook you should read

I'm sure it's an excellent work in its field, but I fail to see its relevance to my comment, which was about the (in)sincerity of the supposed apology from SSE.

Suggest the author's name bears some relevance. Freddie's book has been used by many generations of constructors and not economists.

I still can't see how this has any relevance to the topic of the thread? Perhaps you could explain, as I don't think too many of us are going to be reading a book on a subject we have no interest in to find out how it is in any way linked to your entirely computer generated stock issue non-apology from SSE? 

jacko220

But people have an opinion on it and do not want to find out the truth about energy conservation, therefore like the author's name they have no knowledge of the subject,

GingerTim

jacko220 said:

But people have an opinion on it and do not want to find out the truth about energy conservation, therefore like the author's name they have no knowledge of the subject,

But I wasn't expressing a view on energy conservation, and am always keen to find out more about that rather than living in blissful ignorance of understanding 'F. Hall'.

Rather, I was merely making a flippant though not entirely unserious observation about, as I say again, the insincerity of what purports to be an apology.