About to sue Scottish Power

[Deleted User]

silvercar said:

[Deleted User] said:

The 2nd visit though is a different matter and should not have happened, for that one it would now be reasonable to expect the £30 compensation...

And if SP has yet to procure U16 gas meters, then the OP has to decide whether to wait or switch to a supplier like Octopus that has started U16 smart meter deployments.

So the correct procedure would have been for SP to contact the consumer after the first visit and explain that they don't have U16 smart meters. How is the average consumer meant to know (a) that their meter is non standard, (b) that their supplier doesn't procure the non standard meter and (c) which alternative suppliers do have these meters?

My understanding is that when there is an aborted meter installation visit, the installer (often a third-party) reports back to the supplier with the reasons why a smart meter could not be fitted. This might include asbestos; no access to meter; distance between the gas and electricity meters; no connection to the DCC network etc.

The OP has suggested that he booked another appointment when there is a Smart Meter Installation Code of Practice which covers installation problems and what happens next.

Eldi_Dos

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

Yes, you have misunderstood. 

Then kindly enlighten us, because your post about the U6/U16 mis-classification is ambiguous.
As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and after several thousand words expended on this thread, we're still none the wiser.
If you want a resolution, then you need to supply the info. If you don't, fine.

But we have been enlightened, the installer has been out twice and identified the type of meter and the square footage and age of property would indicate why a meter of this capacity is in place, cannot see any ambiguity there.

I fail to see how hectoring the OP about providing photographs when they politely disregarded previous requests then came back and stated they felt it was intrusive and not relevant to the theme of the thread, is helping matters.

GDB2222

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

Yes, you have misunderstood. 

Then kindly enlighten us, because your post about the U6/U16 mis-classification is ambiguous.
As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and after several thousand words expended on this thread, we're still none the wiser.
If you want a resolution, then you need to supply the info. If you don't, fine.

It hasn't been mis-classified. It's a U16 meter. There's no ambiguity.

The problem isn't with the failed installation. The problem is with SP's response to my complaint about them saying they will be  charging me £60 for their failed installation. More precisely, after nearly 8 weeks, their lack of a response. 

The idea that these are all hard working people trying to do their best ... what a joke.

GDB2222

[Deleted User] said:

silvercar said:

[Deleted User] said:

The 2nd visit though is a different matter and should not have happened, for that one it would now be reasonable to expect the £30 compensation...

And if SP has yet to procure U16 gas meters, then the OP has to decide whether to wait or switch to a supplier like Octopus that has started U16 smart meter deployments.

So the correct procedure would have been for SP to contact the consumer after the first visit and explain that they don't have U16 smart meters. How is the average consumer meant to know (a) that their meter is non standard, (b) that their supplier doesn't procure the non standard meter and (c) which alternative suppliers do have these meters?

My understanding is that when there is an aborted meter installation visit, the installer (often a third-party) reports back to the supplier with the reasons why a smart meter could not be fitted. This might include asbestos; no access to meter; distance between the gas and electricity meters; no connection to the DCC network etc.

The OP has suggested that he booked another appointment when there is a Smart Meter Installation Code of Practice which covers installation problems and what happens next.

Would you care to explain why SP have not complied with this bit of the code of practice:

3.10.3. They have processes in place for: • Re-arranging the Installation Visit, if required; and • Clearly and accurately communicating to the Customer when the Smart Metering System installation is complete.



Or, this bit:

4.2.Customer Feedback It is each Member’s responsibility to ensure that; 4.2.1.The Customer has the means available for providing feedback on their experience of the Installation Visit. This could for example, be in the form of an addressed and franked feedback card, via a website, or verbally; and 4.2.2.This information is taken into account for future Installation Visits and, where appropriate, adjustments are made to Member policies and processes.

Or, this:
5.1.Procedures for Handling Faults It is each Member’s responsibility to ensure that; 5.1.1.If a fault is identified with the Smart Metering System during the Installation Visit, the Customer is made aware of the problem, what the resolution is likely to be, who will be resolving the fault, and the approximate timescales of the resolution; 5.1.2.The Customer is provided with contact details for additional information related to the Smart Metering System fault, for example should they wish to check progress; 5.1.3.It is made clear to the Customer that they will not be charged for rectifying the Smart Metering System fault; 5.1.4.Information is provided as to who the Customer is to contact if they identify a fault with the Smart Metering System;



All of this is SP's responsibility, not mine as you imply, and in every respect SP has failed to comply with the code of practice.

They haven't done any of it! They are clearly putting profits ahead of customer service. So, what I don't understand is why anyone here would want to defend them? 

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

[Deleted User] said:

silvercar said:

[Deleted User] said:

The 2nd visit though is a different matter and should not have happened, for that one it would now be reasonable to expect the £30 compensation...

And if SP has yet to procure U16 gas meters, then the OP has to decide whether to wait or switch to a supplier like Octopus that has started U16 smart meter deployments.

So the correct procedure would have been for SP to contact the consumer after the first visit and explain that they don't have U16 smart meters. How is the average consumer meant to know (a) that their meter is non standard, (b) that their supplier doesn't procure the non standard meter and (c) which alternative suppliers do have these meters?

My understanding is that when there is an aborted meter installation visit, the installer (often a third-party) reports back to the supplier with the reasons why a smart meter could not be fitted. This might include asbestos; no access to meter; distance between the gas and electricity meters; no connection to the DCC network etc.

The OP has suggested that he booked another appointment when there is a Smart Meter Installation Code of Practice which covers installation problems and what happens next.

Would you care to explain why SP have not complied with this bit of the code of practice:

3.10.3. They have processes in place for: • Re-arranging the Installation Visit, if required; and • Clearly and accurately communicating to the Customer when the Smart Metering System installation is complete.



Or, this bit:

4.2.Customer Feedback It is each Member’s responsibility to ensure that; 4.2.1.The Customer has the means available for providing feedback on their experience of the Installation Visit. This could for example, be in the form of an addressed and franked feedback card, via a website, or verbally; and 4.2.2.This information is taken into account for future Installation Visits and, where appropriate, adjustments are made to Member policies and processes.

Or, this:
5.1.Procedures for Handling Faults It is each Member’s responsibility to ensure that; 5.1.1.If a fault is identified with the Smart Metering System during the Installation Visit, the Customer is made aware of the problem, what the resolution is likely to be, who will be resolving the fault, and the approximate timescales of the resolution; 5.1.2.The Customer is provided with contact details for additional information related to the Smart Metering System fault, for example should they wish to check progress; 5.1.3.It is made clear to the Customer that they will not be charged for rectifying the Smart Metering System fault; 5.1.4.Information is provided as to who the Customer is to contact if they identify a fault with the Smart Metering System;



All of this is SP's responsibility, not mine as you imply, and in every respect SP has failed to comply with the code of practice.

They haven't done any of it! They are clearly putting profits ahead of customer service. So, what I don't understand is why anyone here would want to defend them? 

I have never implied anything of the sort. You are the one that wants to sue SP without knowing what you are actually suing them for.

Did you just book another installation appointment in the hope that everything would work out or did you contact the supplier and ask them what action they intended to take under SMICoP?  That is what I would have done. 

Indeed, I would not have agreed to a further installation appointment until I had written confirmation that the supplier, and its appointed installer, were aware of all the issues and had an agreed way forward to resolve them.

Bear in mind that the average CS member would struggle to understand even the most basic of smart meter installation issues.  It is not what they do day-to-day.

In sum, I do not defend SP for a moment but I do think that you might have been a bit more proactive before threatening legal action. I may be alone in thinking that.

macman

GDB2222 said:

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

Yes, you have misunderstood. 

Then kindly enlighten us, because your post about the U6/U16 mis-classification is ambiguous.
As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and after several thousand words expended on this thread, we're still none the wiser.
If you want a resolution, then you need to supply the info. If you don't, fine.

It hasn't been mis-classified. It's a U16 meter. There's no ambiguity.

The problem isn't with the failed installation. The problem is with SP's response to my complaint about them saying they will be  charging me £60 for their failed installation. More precisely, after nearly 8 weeks, their lack of a response. 

The idea that these are all hard working people trying to do their best ... what a joke.

The ambiguity is that SP still have it as a U6 on the national database (which, if I understand correctly, is controlled not by SP but by a third party). So 'the computer' believes you have a U6 and can see no reason why the engineer could not do an install. Ergo, it must be your fault for preventing the install, and you should pay £60 for 'missing' the appointment.
This is obviously absurd, but until somebody at SP who has a clue  can override the 'computer says no' approach, and get the database amended, it's not going to be resolved.

GDB2222

"Bear in mind that the average CS member would struggle to understand even the most basic of smart meter installation issues.  It is not what they do day-to-day."

I totally sympathise with the individual CS rep, who hasn't a clue and is under-trained and underpaid. 

But, it's a requirement of the code that SP has:

6.2.1.Complaint handling and redress systems with appropriately trained staff are put in place ahead of the mass rollout of smart meters; 

So, yet again, all you are doing is highlighting SP's shortcomings. 

GDB2222

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

Yes, you have misunderstood. 

Then kindly enlighten us, because your post about the U6/U16 mis-classification is ambiguous.
As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and after several thousand words expended on this thread, we're still none the wiser.
If you want a resolution, then you need to supply the info. If you don't, fine.

It hasn't been mis-classified. It's a U16 meter. There's no ambiguity.

The problem isn't with the failed installation. The problem is with SP's response to my complaint about them saying they will be  charging me £60 for their failed installation. More precisely, after nearly 8 weeks, their lack of a response. 

The idea that these are all hard working people trying to do their best ... what a joke.

The ambiguity is that SP still have it as a U6 on the national database (which, if I understand correctly, is controlled not by SP but by a third party). So 'the computer' believes you have a U6 and can see no reason why the engineer could not do an install. Ergo, it must be your fault for preventing the install, and you should pay £60 for 'missing' the appointment.
This is obviously absurd, but until somebody at SP who has a clue  can override the 'computer says no' approach, and get the database amended, it's not going to be resolved.

I agree. Complaining to the CEO has not resolved it. So, the next stage is either the ombudsman or the court.