The Energy Ombudsman's Compensation System

CSI_Yorkshire

Xbigman said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

I agree mmmmikey.

I'd much rather there were proper fines, that then get used for something sensible (winter fuel, hardship funds, take your pick) than giving several thousand pounds to individuals who haven't suffered any great loss just because they shout louder or threaten with lawyers.  That's the way it would end up if compensation became the aim.

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

The Ombudsman is there to make sure problems get fixed, not to award compensation.

Compo culture just makes everyone defensive and overall increases costs.  Lets not go the way of the USA.

I wholeheartedly agree, heaven help us if we go the way of the USA.  In my case I didn't ask for, or receive, any compensation.  I just wanted the large sum of money taken from my bank account in error (because our meter was confused with someone else's by the energy company - there was an MPAN mix up) returned.  In the event I didn't even get that.  About £900 was refunded (eventually) but the remaining ~£100 never was.

That's harsh, you should have got everything back, plus fees incurred etc (if there were any). I'd also include costs of telephone calls for chasing and things like that, probably even missed interest on the money you would have had.  That's the correct recompense in my eyes, to put you back in the position you would have been without the mistake.

There are proper fines, that's why energy companies pop up in the news now and then being ordered to pay millions in compensation to sort problems out, and then they have to pay (sometimes) millions into the OFGEM redress fund. 
To try to regulate the energy system in this country at the consumer level would be ridiculously expensive and you can bet that would get added to all our bills. Having a system that awards relatively low levels of compensation at the individual level to cover minor costs such as phone calls and inconvenience is probably the best way of going about things whether individuals like it or not.


Darren

I agree generally, but I don't think that covering costs is compensation, I think it's covering costs.

[Deleted User]

Regulators regulate, and organisations like EOS are there to mediate. The Regulator has just imposed a fine on E.oN Next based no doubt on reports from EOS; Which and Citizens Advice. EOS does not exist to police breaches of a Supply Licence: it is a private company that offers mediation between two parties in dispute.

All too often, we read of people who have spent hours on the phone to their supplier. I have never spent hours on a phone to anyone in my life. If I did, the cost of the calls would be included in my inclusive calls package. What I am saying is that humans are prone to exaggeration. That said, if consumers generally believe that they have a case for compensation they should include details of all the costs incurred in their complaint to EOS.

I am not great fan of EOS or Ofgem but expecting EOS to do the job of the Regulator would, in my opinion, just be plain wrong.

JSHarris

CSI_Yorkshire said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

The Ombudsman is there to make sure problems get fixed, not to award compensation.

Compo culture just makes everyone defensive and overall increases costs.  Lets not go the way of the USA.

I wholeheartedly agree, heaven help us if we go the way of the USA.  In my case I didn't ask for, or receive, any compensation.  I just wanted the large sum of money taken from my bank account in error (because our meter was confused with someone else's by the energy company - there was an MPAN mix up) returned.  In the event I didn't even get that.  About £900 was refunded (eventually) but the remaining ~£100 never was.

That's harsh, you should have got everything back, plus fees incurred etc (if there were any). I'd also include costs of telephone calls for chasing and things like that, probably even missed interest on the money you would have had.  That's the correct recompense in my eyes, to put you back in the position you would have been without the mistake.

I agree, but we were trying to sell our house, needed the MPAN mix up sorted and frankly my stress level was so high at the time that I just didn't have the energy to go on fighting for the sake of about £100.  The problem seemed to be that the supplier in question (then a small company) were just overwhelmed. 

I never found out who made the MPAN mixup, all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years.    Whether it was our previous supplier that made an error when transferring us, or whether it was our new supplier than made the error I just don't know.  I do know that I don't want to go through another 9 months of hell like that again, though!

[Deleted User]

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

The Ombudsman is there to make sure problems get fixed, not to award compensation.

Compo culture just makes everyone defensive and overall increases costs.  Lets not go the way of the USA.

I wholeheartedly agree, heaven help us if we go the way of the USA.  In my case I didn't ask for, or receive, any compensation.  I just wanted the large sum of money taken from my bank account in error (because our meter was confused with someone else's by the energy company - there was an MPAN mix up) returned.  In the event I didn't even get that.  About £900 was refunded (eventually) but the remaining ~£100 never was.

That's harsh, you should have got everything back, plus fees incurred etc (if there were any). I'd also include costs of telephone calls for chasing and things like that, probably even missed interest on the money you would have had.  That's the correct recompense in my eyes, to put you back in the position you would have been without the mistake.

I agree, but we were trying to sell our house, needed the MPAN mix up sorted and frankly my stress level was so high at the time that I just didn't have the energy to go on fighting for the sake of about £100.  The problem seemed to be that the supplier in question (then a small company) were just overwhelmed. 

I never found out who made the MPAN mixup, all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years.    Whether it was our previous supplier that made an error when transferring us, or whether it was our new supplier then made the error I just don't know.  I do know that I don't want to go through another 9 months of hell like that again, though!

Most MPAN mix ups occur during the initial build. Five years ago on a development of just 14 properties all but 2 properties had transposed MPANs. This occurs because builders use plot numbers and actual postal numbers are allocated very late into the build: that is, plot 6 ends up being registered as NO 6 when the actual postal number is NO 14. Builders or their agent provide MPAN/meter details to the designated supplier new connections department.

These issues take time to resolve as it can involve a number of suppliers, and database changes can only be initiated by the designated supplier which has to transfer the correct MPAN to the consumer’s address. If any supplier breaks the MPAN and meter serial number link then all hell breaks out. Neighbours are left with a MPAN and no meter serial number or, even worse, a meter with no MPAN.

CSI_Yorkshire

Dolor said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

The Ombudsman is there to make sure problems get fixed, not to award compensation.

Compo culture just makes everyone defensive and overall increases costs.  Lets not go the way of the USA.

I wholeheartedly agree, heaven help us if we go the way of the USA.  In my case I didn't ask for, or receive, any compensation.  I just wanted the large sum of money taken from my bank account in error (because our meter was confused with someone else's by the energy company - there was an MPAN mix up) returned.  In the event I didn't even get that.  About £900 was refunded (eventually) but the remaining ~£100 never was.

That's harsh, you should have got everything back, plus fees incurred etc (if there were any). I'd also include costs of telephone calls for chasing and things like that, probably even missed interest on the money you would have had.  That's the correct recompense in my eyes, to put you back in the position you would have been without the mistake.

I agree, but we were trying to sell our house, needed the MPAN mix up sorted and frankly my stress level was so high at the time that I just didn't have the energy to go on fighting for the sake of about £100.  The problem seemed to be that the supplier in question (then a small company) were just overwhelmed. 

I never found out who made the MPAN mixup, all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years.    Whether it was our previous supplier that made an error when transferring us, or whether it was our new supplier then made the error I just don't know.  I do know that I don't want to go through another 9 months of hell like that again, though!

Most MPAN mix ups occur during the initial build. Five years ago on a development of just 14 properties all but 2 properties had transposed MPANs. This occurs because builders use plot numbers and actual postal numbers are allocated very late into the build: that is, plot 6 ends up being registered as NO 6 when the actual postal number is NO 14. Builders or their agent provide MPAN/meter details to the designated supplier new connections department.

These issues take time to resolve as it can involve a number of suppliers, and database changes can only be initiated by the designated supplier which has to transfer the correct MPAN to the consumer’s address. If any supplier breaks the MPAN and meter serial number link then all hell breaks out. Neighbours are left with a MPAN and no meter serial number or, even worse, a meter with no MPAN.

Just to repeat JS's statement :

"all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years."

So you're suggesting that a nearby new-build 'stole' the previously correct MPAN, ot that someone else had been wrong for 15 years and attempting to fix that problem caused this?

[Deleted User]

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Dolor said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

JSHarris said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

The Ombudsman is there to make sure problems get fixed, not to award compensation.

Compo culture just makes everyone defensive and overall increases costs.  Lets not go the way of the USA.

I wholeheartedly agree, heaven help us if we go the way of the USA.  In my case I didn't ask for, or receive, any compensation.  I just wanted the large sum of money taken from my bank account in error (because our meter was confused with someone else's by the energy company - there was an MPAN mix up) returned.  In the event I didn't even get that.  About £900 was refunded (eventually) but the remaining ~£100 never was.

That's harsh, you should have got everything back, plus fees incurred etc (if there were any). I'd also include costs of telephone calls for chasing and things like that, probably even missed interest on the money you would have had.  That's the correct recompense in my eyes, to put you back in the position you would have been without the mistake.

I agree, but we were trying to sell our house, needed the MPAN mix up sorted and frankly my stress level was so high at the time that I just didn't have the energy to go on fighting for the sake of about £100.  The problem seemed to be that the supplier in question (then a small company) were just overwhelmed. 

I never found out who made the MPAN mixup, all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years.    Whether it was our previous supplier that made an error when transferring us, or whether it was our new supplier then made the error I just don't know.  I do know that I don't want to go through another 9 months of hell like that again, though!

Most MPAN mix ups occur during the initial build. Five years ago on a development of just 14 properties all but 2 properties had transposed MPANs. This occurs because builders use plot numbers and actual postal numbers are allocated very late into the build: that is, plot 6 ends up being registered as NO 6 when the actual postal number is NO 14. Builders or their agent provide MPAN/meter details to the designated supplier new connections department.

These issues take time to resolve as it can involve a number of suppliers, and database changes can only be initiated by the designated supplier which has to transfer the correct MPAN to the consumer’s address. If any supplier breaks the MPAN and meter serial number link then all hell breaks out. Neighbours are left with a MPAN and no meter serial number or, even worse, a meter with no MPAN.

Just to repeat JS's statement :

"all I know for sure is that both our previous suppliers used the correct MPAN.  Records I uncovered (from old bills) showed our correct MPAN had been in use for at least 15 years."

So you're suggesting that a nearby new-build 'stole' the previously correct MPAN, ot that someone else had been wrong for 15 years and attempting to fix that problem caused this?

I said ‘most’. It happened in Swindon a few years ago when a new row of houses was built in front of a row of existing houses. The new houses ended up ‘stealing’ the MPANs of the existing houses. Similar problems in Worcester which were going on for some time:

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/23434391.city-tenants-refuse-pay-bills-e-energy-meter-mix-up/

With people in the loop, who have access to National databases,  mistakes will occur. Suppliers don’t change registration details without a good reason for doing so 

JSHarris

In our case the house was nearly 40 years old.  We'd lived there for 18 years.  We were with British Gas for years, then switched to a supplier that went bust (Iresa).  Both British gas and Iresa used the correct MPAN - I had bills proving this that went back about 15 years. 

The problem arose when we were transferred to another supplier by OFGEM after Iresa went bust.  They took a bit over £1,100 extra from us by direct debit, claiming that we were seriously in arrears.  I knew we weren't so challenged the bill.  That's when it became clear that the meter readings were nonsense.  The reading they had used was nothing like the reading on our meter. 

Should have been simple to resolve, but it turned out that some other customers had received credit for over-paying, as well as more like me that were billed for energy they'd not used.  I never found out how many people were affected, but knew that it wasn't just two of us whose MPANs had been crossed somehow.

Stuart_

Even if one doesn't assign a specific monetary value to their time, the principle of receiving compensation for the inconvenience and effort spent on sorting a supplier's mistake still stands. It's not just about attaching a monetary value to the time spent; it's more about the respect, inconvenience, and even the emotional distress one might have experienced due to the issue.

Even if you personally feel that your time has no financial value, you are entitled to respect and fair treatment from the companies with which you do business. Receiving compensation when their mistakes cause inconvenience is part of that respect and fair treatment.

While I understand some concerns over fostering a compensation culture, it's crucial to acknowledge that the £50 average compensation isn't a lavish payout by any means. In fact, considering the time, effort, and stress a consumer might experience while trying to resolve a complex issue with an energy supplier, £50 may not even come close to adequately compensating them for their troubles.

Even if we were to see a tenfold increase in the average compensation, bringing it to £500, it still wouldn't be approaching a level that could reasonably be described as promoting an exaggerated compensation culture. Such an amount would be more commensurate with the inconvenience, time, and effort spent, especially in cases where the supplier has made significant errors or provided poor service over a sustained period.

Moreover, a more substantial potential for compensation could serve as a stronger incentive for companies to ensure their services are provided efficiently and effectively, thus reducing the number of complaints and compensation claims in the first place. It's about striking a balance between accountability, consumer protection, and avoiding a culture of excessive compensation claims.

[Deleted User]

Stuart_ said:

Even if one doesn't assign a specific monetary value to their time, the principle of receiving compensation for the inconvenience and ŷeffort spent on sorting a supplier's mistake still stands. It's not just about attaching a monetary value to the time spent; it's more about the respect, inconvenience, and even the emotional distress one might have experienced due to the issue.

Even if you personally feel that your time has no financial value, you are entitled to respect and fair treatment from the companies with which you do business. Receiving compensation when their mistakes cause inconvenience is part of that respect and fair treatment.

While I understand some concerns over fostering a compensation culture, it's crucial to acknowledge that the £50 average compensation isn't a lavish payout by any means. In fact, considering the time, effort, and stress a consumer might experience while trying to resolve a complex issue with an energy supplier, £50 may not even come close to adequately compensating them for their troubles.

Even if we were to see a tenfold increase in the average compensation, bringing it to £500, it still wouldn't be approaching a level that could reasonably be described as promoting an exaggerated compensation culture. Such an amount would be more commensurate with the inconvenience, time, and effort spent, especially in cases where the supplier has made significant errors or provided poor service over a sustained period.

Moreover, a more substantial potential for compensation could serve as a stronger incentive for companies to ensure their services are provided efficiently and effectively, thus reducing the number of complaints and compensation claims in the first place. It's about striking a balance between accountability, consumer protection, and avoiding a culture of excessive compensation claims.

Suppliers already pay EOS a fee of over £400 for each case that is referred to them. If EOS started offering significant compensation then some people would ‘manufacture’ complaints hoping that they might get some compensation for their time and trouble. To a degree, this happens already and often a supplier will just offer a small goodwill payment to keep a customer happy ( saving on staff time etc). If EOS is going to offer more in the way of compensation, then there is an argument that customers should pay an EOS fee to consider a complaint which is refundable only if the complaint is upheld.

I know that you are on a personal mission. Might your time be better spent emailing your MP or getting support for a Government Petition if you feel so strongly on these issues?

Stuart_

Dolor said:

Stuart_ said:

Even if one doesn't assign a specific monetary value to their time, the principle of receiving compensation for the inconvenience and ŷeffort spent on sorting a supplier's mistake still stands. It's not just about attaching a monetary value to the time spent; it's more about the respect, inconvenience, and even the emotional distress one might have experienced due to the issue.

Even if you personally feel that your time has no financial value, you are entitled to respect and fair treatment from the companies with which you do business. Receiving compensation when their mistakes cause inconvenience is part of that respect and fair treatment.

While I understand some concerns over fostering a compensation culture, it's crucial to acknowledge that the £50 average compensation isn't a lavish payout by any means. In fact, considering the time, effort, and stress a consumer might experience while trying to resolve a complex issue with an energy supplier, £50 may not even come close to adequately compensating them for their troubles.

Even if we were to see a tenfold increase in the average compensation, bringing it to £500, it still wouldn't be approaching a level that could reasonably be described as promoting an exaggerated compensation culture. Such an amount would be more commensurate with the inconvenience, time, and effort spent, especially in cases where the supplier has made significant errors or provided poor service over a sustained period.

Moreover, a more substantial potential for compensation could serve as a stronger incentive for companies to ensure their services are provided efficiently and effectively, thus reducing the number of complaints and compensation claims in the first place. It's about striking a balance between accountability, consumer protection, and avoiding a culture of excessive compensation claims.

Suppliers already pay EOS a fee of over £400 for each case that is referred to them. If EOS started offering significant compensation then some people would ‘manufacture’ complaints hoping that they might get some compensation for their time and trouble. To a degree, this happens already and often a supplier will just offer a small goodwill payment to keep a customer happy ( saving on staff time etc). If EOS is going to offer more in the way of compensation, then there is an argument that customers should pay an EOS fee to consider a complaint which is refundable only if the complaint is upheld.

I know that you are on a personal mission. Might your time be better spent emailing your MP or getting support for a Government Petition if you feel so strongly on these issues?

I understand your viewpoint, and I certainly agree that we don't want a system that encourages fraudulent or unfounded complaints. However, the current system appears to favor the energy companies over the consumer in many instances, which is problematic.

While it's true that suppliers pay a fee to the Energy Ombudsman for each case, it's also the case that these fees represent a tiny fraction of the overall revenue of energy companies, and yet the stress, inconvenience, and financial impact on consumers can be significant. I believe it's important that energy companies are held accountable for their service levels, and this includes adequate compensation when they fall short.

As for your suggestion to take my concerns to my MP or start a government petition, that's something I have considered and might pursue. But forums like this are also important to raise awareness and prompt discussion on these issues. In the end, we're all consumers who are impacted by the actions (or inaction) of energy companies and the Energy Ombudsman, so it's in our collective interest to ensure the system is as fair and transparent as possible.