About to sue Scottish Power

ariarnia

MWT said:

Section62 said:

Relying on an operative on the ground to correctly identify the equipment and stop working isn't the best way of keeping people safe.

A certain amount of that is unavoidable, especially if it is an older installation as the supplier can only work off of the limited details held on the central database, which may not even be completely accurate, so the first job once on site is to verify the nature of the meter and the installation and then form an opinion as to the ability to proceed within the limits of the available equipment and training of the engineer...

but really none of that is the customers fault and the services standards are at least in part there to compensate the customer for the wasted time taken for an appointment that didn't sort the problem. 

tbh if sp had been decent otherwise id say maybe the op was being unreasonable (and i think they should defo go via the ombudsman not the court at least first) but if they have messed them about saying they were going to charge the op for the appointment then not respond to the complaint etc then i think £60 is a reasonable good will gesture for bad customer service. 

Section62

MWT said:

Section62 said:

Relying on an operative on the ground to correctly identify the equipment and stop working isn't the best way of keeping people safe.

A certain amount of that is unavoidable, especially if it is an older installation as the supplier can only work off of the limited details held on the central database, which may not even be completely accurate, so the first job once on site is to verify the nature of the meter and the installation and then form an opinion as to the ability to proceed within the limits of the available equipment and training of the engineer...

Sure.

But it would be much less inconvenient to the customer, and potentially safer for the operative, if in cases like the OP's (or where no data was held) the supplier asked the customer to take a picture of the meters so they could be checked before anyone leaves the depot.

After all, suppliers often ask for pictures to prove meter reads, why not ask for one to confirm meter type?

Asking for a picture of the meter(s)/CU is one of the first things us ametuers on this forum do where someone seems to have a non-standard setup... why couldn't SP do the same, rather than having the cost and inconvenience of their operative discovering the obvious having travelled to site?

"A certain amount of that is unavoidable" is essentially because of a lack of imagination/efficiency - a failure to work smarter.

[Deleted User]

Section62 said:

MWT said:

Section62 said:

Relying on an operative on the ground to correctly identify the equipment and stop working isn't the best way of keeping people safe.

A certain amount of that is unavoidable, especially if it is an older installation as the supplier can only work off of the limited details held on the central database, which may not even be completely accurate, so the first job once on site is to verify the nature of the meter and the installation and then form an opinion as to the ability to proceed within the limits of the available equipment and training of the engineer...

Sure.

But it would be much less inconvenient to the customer, and potentially safer for the operative, if in cases like the OP's (or where no data was held) the supplier asked the customer to take a picture of the meters so they could be checked before anyone leaves the depot.

After all, suppliers often ask for pictures to prove meter reads, why not ask for one to confirm meter type?

Asking for a picture of the meter(s)/CU is one of the first things us ametuers on this forum do where someone seems to have a non-standard setup... why couldn't SP do the same, rather than having the cost and inconvenience of their operative discovering the obvious having travelled to site?

"A certain amount of that is unavoidable" is essentially because of a lack of imagination/efficiency - a failure to work smarter.

If suppliers started asking for photos of meters and their location then this would just add to time and cost when I suspect 99% of smart meter installations are a straightforward job for a trained installer. Remember we are all paying for this rollout via standing charges.

Mstty

It would be interesting to get a picture from the OP of their meter. There are some very knowledgeable people here that might be able to advise.

Section62

[Deleted User] said:

Section62 said:

If suppliers started asking for photos of meters and their location then this would just add to time and cost when I suspect 99% of smart meter installations are a straightforward job for a trained installer. Remember we are all paying for this rollout via standing charges.

"if in cases like the OP's"

...in other words the "1%" where the information on the database is missing, incomplete, or otherwise suggests a problematic case.

I'm not suggesting the supplier asks for a picture for 100% of jobs.  Nor would I expect all customers to be able/willing to provide one.

We are all paying for this rollout - which is why those organising it should work harder to make sure they aren't sending the wrong people out to do jobs they can't do.  Failed/abortive visits cost money, as well as causing people like GDB2222 inconvenience.

MWT

Section62 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Section62 said:

If suppliers started asking for photos of meters and their location then this would just add to time and cost when I suspect 99% of smart meter installations are a straightforward job for a trained installer. Remember we are all paying for this rollout via standing charges.

"if in cases like the OP's"

...in other words the "1%" where the information on the database is missing, incomplete, or otherwise suggests a problematic case.

I would bet that in most of the cases where they are unable to proceed, they really will not know until they get there, no matter how much they look at the records.

It is unfortunate when it happens, but this isn't something that the service standards were designed to cover.

An appointment was made, the engineer turned up but could not proceed. A new appointment has been made and this time they should have what they need for this particular case.

No compensation is due.  

GDB2222

I rebooked the smart meter installation for this morning, and the same chap turned up. 

"Last time I was here I updated your details to show that you have a U16 meter, but the database is still showing a U6 meter.  I'm not authorised to work on U16, and I don't carry the parts. Bye." 

Mstty

GDB2222 said:

I rebooked the smart meter installation for this morning, and the same chap turned up. 

"Last time I was here I updated your details to show that you have a U16 meter, but the database is still showing a U6 meter.  I'm not authorised to work on U16, and I don't carry the parts. Bye." 

Looks like it's considered to be a commercial meter.

Oh well another £30 for you

What's the square footage/M2 of your house perhaps it was required.

macman

He could still have swapped out the electricity meter for a smart meter though...

Section62

MWT said:

Section62 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Section62 said:

If suppliers started asking for photos of meters and their location then this would just add to time and cost when I suspect 99% of smart meter installations are a straightforward job for a trained installer. Remember we are all paying for this rollout via standing charges.

"if in cases like the OP's"

...in other words the "1%" where the information on the database is missing, incomplete, or otherwise suggests a problematic case.

I would bet that in most of the cases where they are unable to proceed, they really will not know until they get there, no matter how much they look at the records.

It is unfortunate when it happens, but this isn't something that the service standards were designed to cover.

An appointment was made, the engineer turned up but could not proceed. A new appointment has been made and this time they should have what they need for this particular case.

No compensation is due.  

You still think this after GDB2222's subsequent post?

The fundamental issue here is with the record keeping.  As an engineer I wouldn't consider getting to the construction/implementation phase of a project without gathering information needed to do the job, if necessary having surveys carried out.  If I see that the records I'm looking at don't look right or can't be relied on, I sort that out first.

One of the jobs I worked on was establishing sewerage asset management plans.  We did that so we knew what the system consisted of, and so we didn't send people to site without knowledge of what they were going to deal with when they got there.  That was about 30 years ago.

I raise an eyebrow when people try to justify a situation in which an energy supplier is sending operatives out to do work on equipment they aren't trained to work on, apparently because the 'system' doesn't know what equipment has been installed, and that is somehow regarded as normal.  To do the same a second time doesn't strike me as having a well managed system in place.