Dealing with a Nightmare: Energy Supplier and Ombudsman Frustrations

CSI_Yorkshire

Stuart_ said:

so are you saying that meter faults are rare?

Extremely.

Stuart_

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Stuart_ said:

so are you saying that meter faults are rare?

Extremely.

Based on what evidence?

CSI_Yorkshire

Stuart_ said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Stuart_ said:

so are you saying that meter faults are rare?

Extremely.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the evidence that has been pointed out and discussed twice already on this thread.  And no, I don't mean the random unsourced 'leaks'.

Stuart_

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Stuart_ said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Stuart_ said:

so are you saying that meter faults are rare?

Extremely.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the evidence that has been pointed out and discussed twice already on this thread.  And no, I don't mean the random unsourced 'leaks'.

you mean the testing of around 2,000 unknown gas meters where we're not allowed to see the results? out of a population of millions meters.

How does that make you believe that energy meter faults are rare? What if they only tested the latest models? What if a specific type of meter wasn't included in the sample?

CSI_Yorkshire

I mean the regular in-service testing regime, plus the targeted testing where a customer reports an issue (where the vast majority were determined to not have a fault), plus the manufacturer type certification and tests against international standards, plus the recertification and accuracy testing procedure for extending lifetime, plus the national sample survey, and plus the MID and schedule 4 approval processes.

Not a daily mail scare article and a personal anecdote.

Stuart_

Unless consumers have been meticulously tracking their energy consumption patterns, and have a clear understanding of how different variables (like seasonal changes, addition of new appliances, changes in usage patterns etc.) impact their consumption, it can be hard to detect abnormal readings. Even if they observe an unexpected spike in their energy bills, it can be hard to attribute it to a faulty meter with certainty, without technical expertise.

For this reason user reporting cannot be used as a good metric for deciding if energy meter faults are rare.

For example most people wouldn't be aware in their energy meter was over reporting more than the 2.5% allowed amount.

The manufacturing type certification, international standard tests, lifetime recertification and accuracy testing, national sample surveys, MID, and schedule 4 approval processes are all excellent measures on paper. Yet, these can't fully prevent instances where specific meters malfunction, or where certain models might have an inherent issue that only becomes apparent over time or under certain conditions.

On a whole there is very little testing done, meters often sit on walls for decades without being retested and consumers aren't able to calibrate their own energy meter's effectively if at all.

so with very little evidence it's difficult to say that energy meter faults are rare or extreamly rare.

CSI_Yorkshire

"fully prevent", "certain conditions", "certain models" ...

This is whataboutery without evidence, simply to support your individual crusade.  Either that or a chatbot.

This thread is now pointless.

[Deleted User]

The original post was about gas: where has this 2.5% figure come from?

Quote: (ii)at any rate of flow not less than the smallest rate of flow for which it is designed and less than 1/5th of the greatest rate of flow for which it is designed, will register such quantity of gas or air as does not differ from the actual quantity of gas or air passing through the meter by more than 2 per cent of that actual quantity; Unquote

Source: The Gas Meter Regulations 1983 (as amended)

I am no great mathematician but the two caveats of smallest rate of flow and 1/5th of the greatest rate of flow suggest to me that we are talking about 2% of not a lot. That is, consumers are not potentially being overcharged 2% for all the gas that is being consumed.

Stuart_

I appreciate your perspective on the rarity of energy meter faults. However, I believe that in order to substantiate such a claim, it is important to have substantial, verifiable evidence readily available. The burden of proof should be on the party making the claim.

When it comes to something as essential as energy meters, the reliability of which significantly affects our daily lives and finances, any claims about their performance should be backed by rigorous and transparent testing results. Until such data is publicly accessible and can be independently verified, it seems reasonable to continue questioning the "rarity" of energy meter faults.

It is our right as consumers to seek and obtain information about the products and services we use. This transparency not only builds trust in the systems we rely on but also enables us to make informed decisions and advocate for ourselves when necessary.

QrizB

Stuart_ said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Based on the evidence that has been pointed out and discussed twice already on this thread.  And no, I don't mean the random unsourced 'leaks'.

you mean the testing of around 2,000 unknown gas meters where we're not allowed to see the results? out of a population of millions meters.

2000 from "millions" is, statistically, a pretty good sample size.

YouGov etc. surveys use that sort of sample size, for a similar population of voters.

Stuart_ said:

How does that make you believe that energy meter faults are rare? What if they only tested the latest models? What if a specific type of meter wasn't included in the sample?

How does testing energy meters and not finding faults make you believe that faults are rare? The answer is in the question.

What if they only tested the latest models? Do you have any reason to think that's correct, considering the tests aren't solely on meters chosen by Big Meter but include meters reported as faulty by members of the public?

What if a specific type of meter wasn't included in the sample? For it not to be included, it would need to both be uncommon and not one of the ones reported by Joe Public.