About to sue Scottish Power

Section62

EssexHebridean said:

For avoidance of doubt for anyone else reading - asking for a photo of a meter in a situation where that meter is apparently in some way "non standard" is absolutely normal and not at all intrusive - you should however block out the personally identifying numbers from it before posting the photo - either by sticking a bit of a post-it note over them before the photo is taken, or blurring them in the picture. There have often been occasions on here where a simple photo showing the meter has enabled one of those knowledgeable on the matter at hand to instantly ascertain the problem - so it's not helpful to leave a suggestion of it being intrusive and unnecessary floating unchallenged.

I think the point in this specific thread is since it had already been confirmed that the meter is a U16 type, and this is why the fitter couldn't do the job, having a picture of the meter was unnecessary.

There has been something of a hostile undertone from some contributions in this thread (often happens when the word "sue" gets used) so I can understand why GDB2222 (who contributes a lot of valuable advice to the forum overall) might feel that continued questions/requests for pictures were intrusive/unnecessary.

In a case where there is still mystery about the type of meter/installation then a photo would help.  But the type of meter GDB2222 has is no longer a mystery, and why they have that type of meter seems to be irrelevant to the issue of compensation (unless they are a business rather than domestic consumer).

The_Green_Hornet

Section62 said:

EssexHebridean said:

For avoidance of doubt for anyone else reading - asking for a photo of a meter in a situation where that meter is apparently in some way "non standard" is absolutely normal and not at all intrusive - you should however block out the personally identifying numbers from it before posting the photo - either by sticking a bit of a post-it note over them before the photo is taken, or blurring them in the picture. There have often been occasions on here where a simple photo showing the meter has enabled one of those knowledgeable on the matter at hand to instantly ascertain the problem - so it's not helpful to leave a suggestion of it being intrusive and unnecessary floating unchallenged.

I think the point in this specific thread is since it had already been confirmed that the meter is a U16 type, and this is why the fitter couldn't do the job, having a picture of the meter was unnecessary.

There has been something of a hostile undertone from some contributions in this thread (often happens when the word "sue" gets used) so I can understand why GDB2222 (who contributes a lot of valuable advice to the forum overall) might feel that continued questions/requests for pictures were intrusive/unnecessary.

In a case where there is still mystery about the type of meter/installation then a photo would help.  But the type of meter GDB2222 has is no longer a mystery, and why they have that type of meter seems to be irrelevant to the issue of compensation (unless they are a business rather than domestic consumer).

I totally agree. If a poster feels it is intrusive and unnecessary to do something then other forum members really should respect that and if this means they can't help them then they should simply move on to the next thread.

ariarnia

Section62 said:

EssexHebridean said:

For avoidance of doubt for anyone else reading - asking for a photo of a meter in a situation where that meter is apparently in some way "non standard" is absolutely normal and not at all intrusive - you should however block out the personally identifying numbers from it before posting the photo - either by sticking a bit of a post-it note over them before the photo is taken, or blurring them in the picture. There have often been occasions on here where a simple photo showing the meter has enabled one of those knowledgeable on the matter at hand to instantly ascertain the problem - so it's not helpful to leave a suggestion of it being intrusive and unnecessary floating unchallenged.

I think the point in this specific thread is since it had already been confirmed that the meter is a U16 type, and this is why the fitter couldn't do the job, having a picture of the meter was unnecessary.

There has been something of a hostile undertone from some contributions in this thread (often happens when the word "sue" gets used) so I can understand why GDB2222 (who contributes a lot of valuable advice to the forum overall) might feel that continued questions/requests for pictures were intrusive/unnecessary.

In a case where there is still mystery about the type of meter/installation then a photo would help.  But the type of meter GDB2222 has is no longer a mystery, and why they have that type of meter seems to be irrelevant to the issue of compensation (unless they are a business rather than domestic consumer).

that does kind of assume we're trusting the meter installer nos a u16 from his elbow... which in fairness if he's a contractor and not an employee of sp is more than likely ;-)

EssexHebridean

Section62 said:

EssexHebridean said:

For avoidance of doubt for anyone else reading - asking for a photo of a meter in a situation where that meter is apparently in some way "non standard" is absolutely normal and not at all intrusive - you should however block out the personally identifying numbers from it before posting the photo - either by sticking a bit of a post-it note over them before the photo is taken, or blurring them in the picture. There have often been occasions on here where a simple photo showing the meter has enabled one of those knowledgeable on the matter at hand to instantly ascertain the problem - so it's not helpful to leave a suggestion of it being intrusive and unnecessary floating unchallenged.

I think the point in this specific thread is since it had already been confirmed that the meter is a U16 type, and this is why the fitter couldn't do the job, having a picture of the meter was unnecessary.

<snip>

This is why I made it clear that I was speaking generally, rather than referring to the specific thread. :-) 

macman

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.

MWT

Section62 said:

You still think this after GDB2222's subsequent post?

Yes. 100%, now we have the extra details provided in the recent post it is clear that the problem on the first visit was not something it was possible to identify from the available records, and no compensation is due in regard to that abortive visit.

Section62 said:

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.

It just isn't practical to conduct pre-visit surveys for every meter swap when the vast majority will go according to plan.

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...

[Deleted User]

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.

MWT

[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.

... and if they do switch I would suggest making it clear to the new provider, when requesting  smart meters, that a U16 meter is involved, just in case the database update gets 'lost' ...

born_again

One thing for Op to ponder on. Taking SP to court will take several months at best. Where as using the complaint procedure & ombudsman process, could be a lot quicker.

silvercar

[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?