British gas

CSI_Yorkshire

matt_drummer said:

Dolor said:

If consumers want monthly billing they can always switch suppliers. That said, the Licence Condition is particularly woolly:

How anyone could prove a breach of the Condition is beyond me. There are some consumers that monitor their usage/costs daily whereas others just find the whole process of energy bills completely baffling.

In the example above, sending a statement one day showing the account is in credit by over £1,000 is misleading and is not sufficient to enable a domestic customer to understand and manage the costs. The account was actually in debit by £100 the next day.

But monthly billing would also have not been accurate, apart from on the day the bill was produced.  If that's the argument, then only live transactions like a bank account satisfy the condition.

A strict reading of the condition would imply that if any particular customer does not understand their costs/balance, then the condition has been breached for that customer - something that this site seems to evidence occurs regularly.  The condition being wooly isn't on the supplier's side in this case.

I agree that six-monthly does seem to be causing trouble for no reason and really shouldn't be the default/only option.

[Deleted User]

CSI_Yorkshire said:

matt_drummer said:

Dolor said:

If consumers want monthly billing they can always switch suppliers. That said, the Licence Condition is particularly woolly:

How anyone could prove a breach of the Condition is beyond me. There are some consumers that monitor their usage/costs daily whereas others just find the whole process of energy bills completely baffling.

In the example above, sending a statement one day showing the account is in credit by over £1,000 is misleading and is not sufficient to enable a domestic customer to understand and manage the costs. The account was actually in debit by £100 the next day.

But monthly billing would also have not been accurate, apart from on the day the bill was produced.  If that's the argument, then only live transactions like a bank account satisfy the condition.

A strict reading of the condition would imply that if any particular customer does not understand their costs/balance, then the condition has been breached for that customer - something that this site seems to evidence occurs regularly.  The condition being wooly isn't on the supplier's side in this case.

I agree that six-monthly does seem to be causing trouble for no reason and really shouldn't be the default/only option.

Being a Devil’s Advocate for a moment, the consumer confusion occurs because he/she looks at their online account and it shows a credit/debit balance. A simple statement to the effect that the balance does not take into account any energy charges or accruals from (insert the date of the last statement) would help clarify the situation. 

I support monthly billing and I confess that I have no idea why any supplier thinks that it can manage its responsibilities in respect of potential customer debt by allowing 6 months’ consumer credit.

With respect to BG, it was the supplier that managed to negotiate with Ofgem a derogation that allowed it to read meters once every 5 years whereas all other suppliers had a 2 year meter reading obligation so it clearly had some sway over Ofgem policy. How much sway it has today is anybody’s guess.

matt_drummer

CSI_Yorkshire said:

matt_drummer said:

Dolor said:

If consumers want monthly billing they can always switch suppliers. That said, the Licence Condition is particularly woolly:

How anyone could prove a breach of the Condition is beyond me. There are some consumers that monitor their usage/costs daily whereas others just find the whole process of energy bills completely baffling.

In the example above, sending a statement one day showing the account is in credit by over £1,000 is misleading and is not sufficient to enable a domestic customer to understand and manage the costs. The account was actually in debit by £100 the next day.

But monthly billing would also have not been accurate, apart from on the day the bill was produced.  If that's the argument, then only live transactions like a bank account satisfy the condition.

A strict reading of the condition would imply that if any particular customer does not understand their costs/balance, then the condition has been breached for that customer - something that this site seems to evidence occurs regularly.  The condition being wooly isn't on the supplier's side in this case.

I agree that six-monthly does seem to be causing trouble for no reason and really shouldn't be the default/only option.

Well, of course the statement is only accurate at the time it is produced.

Being short of one month's usage isn't as significant as being six months short.

In my opinion, a statement that shows a credit balance but lacks months of usage costs is misleading and in breach of the requirement to allow a customer to understand and manage their account.

With six monthly billing it will take a customer to do some work to calculate their true position.

That cannot be the point of any statement and is unacceptable.

Sending out statements showing a considerably different position to reality cannot be complying with the terms and spirit of that licence condition.

[Deleted User]

matt_drummer said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

matt_drummer said:

Dolor said:

If consumers want monthly billing they can always switch suppliers. That said, the Licence Condition is particularly woolly:

How anyone could prove a breach of the Condition is beyond me. There are some consumers that monitor their usage/costs daily whereas others just find the whole process of energy bills completely baffling.

In the example above, sending a statement one day showing the account is in credit by over £1,000 is misleading and is not sufficient to enable a domestic customer to understand and manage the costs. The account was actually in debit by £100 the next day.

But monthly billing would also have not been accurate, apart from on the day the bill was produced.  If that's the argument, then only live transactions like a bank account satisfy the condition.

A strict reading of the condition would imply that if any particular customer does not understand their costs/balance, then the condition has been breached for that customer - something that this site seems to evidence occurs regularly.  The condition being wooly isn't on the supplier's side in this case.

I agree that six-monthly does seem to be causing trouble for no reason and really shouldn't be the default/only option.

Well, of course the statement is only accurate at the time it is produced.

Being short of one month's usage isn't as significant as being six months short.

In my opinion, a statement that shows a credit balance but lacks months of usage costs is misleading and in breach of the requirement to allow a customer to understand and manage their account.

With six monthly billing it will take a customer to do some work to calculate their true position.

That cannot be the point of any statement and is unacceptable.

Sending out statements showing a considerably different position to reality cannot be complying with the terms and spirit of that licence condition.

An online app that shows a credit balance is not a statement. It is simply a credit/debit balance on a given day from which energy charges will be deducted. If your suggested interpretation of the SLC is correct then every supplier would be in potential breach. 

I know for example that I am due a statement in 4 days time. My online account shows a credit balance which is 24 days old. As of now, I have no idea how much electricity I will import or export over the next 4 days as I have no idea how much solar gain the sun will provide. Is my supplier in breach of the SLC as I cannot work out my true energy account position?

matt_drummer

[Deleted User] said:

matt_drummer said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

matt_drummer said:

Dolor said:

If consumers want monthly billing they can always switch suppliers. That said, the Licence Condition is particularly woolly:

How anyone could prove a breach of the Condition is beyond me. There are some consumers that monitor their usage/costs daily whereas others just find the whole process of energy bills completely baffling.

In the example above, sending a statement one day showing the account is in credit by over £1,000 is misleading and is not sufficient to enable a domestic customer to understand and manage the costs. The account was actually in debit by £100 the next day.

But monthly billing would also have not been accurate, apart from on the day the bill was produced.  If that's the argument, then only live transactions like a bank account satisfy the condition.

A strict reading of the condition would imply that if any particular customer does not understand their costs/balance, then the condition has been breached for that customer - something that this site seems to evidence occurs regularly.  The condition being wooly isn't on the supplier's side in this case.

I agree that six-monthly does seem to be causing trouble for no reason and really shouldn't be the default/only option.

Well, of course the statement is only accurate at the time it is produced.

Being short of one month's usage isn't as significant as being six months short.

In my opinion, a statement that shows a credit balance but lacks months of usage costs is misleading and in breach of the requirement to allow a customer to understand and manage their account.

With six monthly billing it will take a customer to do some work to calculate their true position.

That cannot be the point of any statement and is unacceptable.

Sending out statements showing a considerably different position to reality cannot be complying with the terms and spirit of that licence condition.

An online app that shows a credit balance is not a statement. It is simply a credit/debit balance on a given day from which energy charges will be deducted. If your suggested interpretation of the SLC is correct then every supplier would be in potential breach. 

I know for example that I am due a statement in 4 days time. My online account shows a credit balance which is 24 days old. As of now, I have no idea how much electricity I will import or export over the next 4 days as I have no idea how much solar gain sun will provide. Is my supplier in breach of the SLC as I cannot work out my true energy account position?

I don't expect it to be a live position.

The licence condition requires the statement to be of a frequency to allow the customer to understand and mange their energy costs.

For me the breach is the frequency, updating the account balance to a true position once every six months is not frequent enough to allow some people to manage and understand their account.

With energy costs as they are now, forming a much larger part of people's household budgets, an account that shows the true position needs to be updated more frequently than twice a year.

It's too much money now and just cause problems for too many people.

They'll look at their account, see a large credit and think everything is fine when it probably isn't.

A customer shouldn't have to calculate their own bills for six months just to make sure they are not spending vastly more than they have actually paid the supplier.

The supplier has all the information to update the account more frequently and if they don't they should ask the customer to submit meter readings.

pochase

That is not what Ofgem are saying.

They state

RULES RELATING TO BILLING
SLC 21B Billing based on meter readings
  Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to obtain meter readings at least annually, and must make a bill or statement of account available at least twice a year, or quarterly where requested and/or if a customer has online account management (subject to specific exceptions for PPM, smart customers and unmetered supply customers).
 Suppliers cannot charge extra for providing a bill unless a duplicate is being requested.
 Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to reflect accurate meter readings in bills or statements sent to customers where these have been provided by a customer or obtained by the supplier. If a supplier doesn’t consider a meter reading provided by a customer to be reasonably accurate, it must take all reasonable steps to obtain a new reading from the customer.
 Suppliers must make online account management available on request. They must also provide historical consumption information to a customer or other person designated by the customer (e.g. third parties) and explain how a customer’s bill was derived if requested. 

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2019/02/licence_guide_metering_billing_and_payments_1.pdf

So 6 monthly billing clearly is sufficient for Ofgem, if it makes sense is a different quesrion.

debitcardmayhem

WHOA GUYS AND GALS, al this talk about SLCs and Billing etc is not helping the poster @hendipoo needs suggestions npt discussions on 6 monthly billing etc.. Can we get back on track and the OP to answer the earlier questions.

CSI_Yorkshire

debitcardmayhem said:

WHOA GUYS AND GALS, al this talk about SLCs and Billing etc is not helping the poster @hendipoo needs suggestions npt discussions on 6 monthly billing etc.. Can we get back on track

Suggestion is "it isn't actually credit unless its just after you've had a bill, so you probably won't be getting a refund".  Not much help, but without any other information that's our best guess at the position.

debitcardmayhem

CSI_Yorkshire said:

debitcardmayhem said:

WHOA GUYS AND GALS, al this talk about SLCs and Billing etc is not helping the poster @hendipoo needs suggestions npt discussions on 6 monthly billing etc.. Can we get back on track

Suggestion is "it isn't actually credit unless its just after you've had a bill, so you probably won't be getting a refund".  Not much help, but without any other information that's our best guess at the position.

My point exactly so why the posturing about billing etc until the original poster gives us more information. jeez

matt_drummer

pochase said:

That is not what Ofgem are saying.

They state

RULES RELATING TO BILLING
SLC 21B Billing based on meter readings
  Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to obtain meter readings at least annually, and must make a bill or statement of account available at least twice a year, or quarterly where requested and/or if a customer has online account management (subject to specific exceptions for PPM, smart customers and unmetered supply customers).
 Suppliers cannot charge extra for providing a bill unless a duplicate is being requested.
 Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to reflect accurate meter readings in bills or statements sent to customers where these have been provided by a customer or obtained by the supplier. If a supplier doesn’t consider a meter reading provided by a customer to be reasonably accurate, it must take all reasonable steps to obtain a new reading from the customer.
 Suppliers must make online account management available on request. They must also provide historical consumption information to a customer or other person designated by the customer (e.g. third parties) and explain how a customer’s bill was derived if requested. 

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2019/02/licence_guide_metering_billing_and_payments_1.pdf

So 6 monthly billing clearly is sufficient for Ofgem, if it makes sense is a different quesrion.

That is not the licence condition we are discussing.

The licence condition about bills and statements of accounts requires the supplier to provide statement of account at a sufficient frequency for a customer to understand and mange their energy costs.

A statement, in whatever form, once every six months is not frequent enough to be able to do this.

We were not not discussing breaking the billing frequency condition.

I think they break the condition on the provision of frequent enough and accurate enough statements of account.