The Energy Ombudsman's Compensation System

[Deleted User]

Stuart_ said:

Mobtr said:

Stuart_ can I just ask what type of complaint you think warrants compensation and how much you believe it should be? 

Is it a late bill, direct debit set incorrectly, incorrect bill etc or more serious matters? 

I believe the type and amount of compensation should be determined by the severity and impact of the issue experienced by the customer.

For minor issues like a slightly late bill or a minor clerical error that is quickly corrected without causing stress or financial inconvenience, I don't necessarily think compensation is warranted. However, for more serious matters that have tangible impacts on a customer's life, such as significantly incorrect billing that results in financial hardship, persistent service failures, or incorrect direct debit setup leading to overdraft fees, compensation should indeed be considered.

It's important to note that it's not just about monetary recompense; it's also about acknowledging the impact that these mistakes can have on customers. Such recognition can go a long way in maintaining customer trust and satisfaction.

As to the amount, it's difficult to set a blanket figure as it would depend on the specific circumstances of each case. However, I believe it should be sufficient to cover any direct financial loss incurred as a result of the issue, and also reflect the level of inconvenience and distress caused.

Again, my main objective is to advocate for a system that treats consumers fairly and recognizes when their experiences fall short of the standard they should expect from their energy providers.

So you want an investigator, as EOS chooses to call them (who is paid c.£25k a year), to determine the amount of stress that a problem has caused the complainant. EOS has never awarded compensation. All payments are annotated as goodwill. If a complainant feels that there is a genuine case for compensation then that is what the Courts are for. 

In such circumstances, the complainant would have to provide detailed evidence in support of their case which amounts to more than ‘I was on the phone for 2 hours’. I would suggest to you that often it is the customer that is responsible for the situation that he/she finds themselves in. For example, they don’t provide meter readings and estimates are used; they don’t bother to look at their bills; they fail to do a simple sanity check that the amount that they are paying comes anywhere near what they should be paying to cover their usage. When things go wrong then rather than look in the mirror, they just make a complaint.

Reading some of the complaints on this forum, I wouldn’t work for an energy company CS team or for EOS for a King’s ransom. Many people have totally unreasonable expectations. 

FWiW, the Regulator has set guaranteed service standards and it has determined when compensation should be paid for a service failure. Here is an example:

https://www.ssen.co.uk/globalassets/about-us/performance-standards/docs/performance-standards---metered-connections.pdf

Stuart_

Dolor said:

Stuart_ said:

Mobtr said:

Stuart_ can I just ask what type of complaint you think warrants compensation and how much you believe it should be? 

Is it a late bill, direct debit set incorrectly, incorrect bill etc or more serious matters? 

I believe the type and amount of compensation should be determined by the severity and impact of the issue experienced by the customer.

For minor issues like a slightly late bill or a minor clerical error that is quickly corrected without causing stress or financial inconvenience, I don't necessarily think compensation is warranted. However, for more serious matters that have tangible impacts on a customer's life, such as significantly incorrect billing that results in financial hardship, persistent service failures, or incorrect direct debit setup leading to overdraft fees, compensation should indeed be considered.

It's important to note that it's not just about monetary recompense; it's also about acknowledging the impact that these mistakes can have on customers. Such recognition can go a long way in maintaining customer trust and satisfaction.

As to the amount, it's difficult to set a blanket figure as it would depend on the specific circumstances of each case. However, I believe it should be sufficient to cover any direct financial loss incurred as a result of the issue, and also reflect the level of inconvenience and distress caused.

Again, my main objective is to advocate for a system that treats consumers fairly and recognizes when their experiences fall short of the standard they should expect from their energy providers.

So you want an investigator, as EOS chooses to call them (who is paid c.£25k a year), to determine the amount of stress that a problem has caused the complainant. EOS has never awarded compensation. All payments are annotated as goodwill. If a complainant feels that there is a genuine case for compensation then that is what the Courts are for. 

In such circumstances, the complainant would have to provide detailed evidence in support of their case which amounts to more than ‘I was on the phone for 2 hours’. I would suggest to you that often it is the customer that is responsible for the situation that he/she finds themselves in. For example, they don’t provide meter readings and estimates are used; they don’t bother to look at their bills; they fail to do a simple sanity check that the amount that they are paying comes anywhere near what they should be paying to cover their usage. When things go wrong then rather than look in the mirror, they just make a complaint.

Reading some of the complaints on this forum, I wouldn’t work for an energy company CS team or for EOS for a King’s ransom. Many people have totally unreasonable expectations. 

FWiW, the Regulator has set guaranteed service standards and it has determined when compensation should be paid for a service failure. Here is an example:

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that each party should take responsibility for their part in any issues that arise. Consumers should indeed provide regular meter readings, scrutinize their bills, and have reasonable expectations.

However, it's also important to recognize that the relationship between an energy provider and its customer is not one of equals. Energy providers have significant power and resources at their disposal, while consumers depend on them for a vital service. This dynamic can create a power imbalance, which is why it's so crucial to have robust systems in place to protect consumers when things go wrong.

As for your point about the role of investigators, I believe their main job should be to impartially determine the facts of a case, not to assess the level of stress experienced by the complainant. That said, I do believe that in cases where it's clear a consumer has suffered undue stress or financial hardship due to a supplier's errors, it would be fair and just to provide some form of goodwill payment that reflects this.

And finally, regarding your point about the courts, while they certainly have a role to play in resolving some disputes, it's not realistic or fair to expect every customer who has had a poor experience with their energy provider to take their case to court. That's why services like the Energy Ombudsman exist in the first place - to provide a simpler, more accessible way for consumers to seek redress when things go wrong.

ben_glastonbury

I was awarded 120 pounds by the ombudsman for the goodwill payment in his decision. I also got a refund on my payments for errors in the opening readings which British gas could not explain to the ombudsman. When I pointed out to the ombudsman that he had missed an additional 20 pounds because my readings were not used at a price change but they used estimates favourable to themselves (fortunately I had dated photos of the readings), he ruled that 20 pounds of the goodwill payment was for this 20 pounds. I do not believe him.
My original complaint was that I had had four bills cancelled and there was no replacement for the period covered by those bills, only an amount of 2400 pounds. I wanted a bill from British gas. This is what is required in their license conditions and also in their contract. 
In the end after weeks backwards and forwards with the ombudsman after his decision was made I was unable to obtain a bill covering the period. 
I could have appealed but at that stage decided to get the money although I am still very angry that I have paid so much money and not been given a bill covering the period. 
I think Ofgem should remove the contract with the company providing the ombudsman and give a contract to someone who will enforce the rules. This might give a better balance towards the customer.

JSHarris

Anger is my lasting feeling regarding my experience with the ombudsman service.  Being out of pocket by around £100 is minor compared to the fact that I still feel very bitter about the whole thing, several years later.  The only thing I can do is never use the company that failed to address what was a clear error, that they were wholly responsible for.  At the time I just gave in, as it was doing my head in.  I still think this is precisely what the company and the ombudsman wanted - they seemed to have engineered things to encourage me to give up trying to fight any more.

CSI_Yorkshire

ben_glastonbury said:

I think Ofgem should remove the contract with the company providing the ombudsman and give a contract to someone who will enforce the rules. 

Sorry?  What's this?

OFGEM should "give the contract for providing the ombudsman to someone else"?

I think you've completely misunderstood how that all works.

That's generally also a good example of why customer's desire for compensation and what would be sensible differs wildly.  For believing that they haven't had a bill correctly covered the period, why would large punitive compensation be sensible?

ben_glastonbury

CSI_Yorkshire said:

ben_glastonbury said:

I think Ofgem should remove the contract with the company providing the ombudsman and give a contract to someone who will enforce the rules. 

Sorry?  What's this?

OFGEM should "give the contract for providing the ombudsman to someone else"?

I think you've completely misunderstood how that all works.

That's generally also a good example of why customer's desire for compensation and what would be sensible differs wildly.  For believing that they haven't had a bill correctly covered the period, why would large punitive compensation be sensible?

I thought the ombudsman was run by a private company appointed by Ofgem. Have I misunderstood.

I thought I was entitled to a bill. Having tried to get one from the supplier over a number of phone calls I put in a formal complaint in early December asking for a correct bill covering the period from Dec 2021 to August 2022. I referred it to the ombudsman  at the end of Feb after BG failed to provide any reason why they had arbitarily changed readings in a replacement bill or provide the requested bill. It is June and I have only now accepted the ombudsmans decision as it was clear that they do not believe that I am entitled to a bill covering the period in question. The supplier has admitted multiple instances where they have failed to provide acceptable levels of customer service. I did not say in my comment that I thought I should recieve a larger compensation/goodwill payment. The supplier has admitted they do not know why they changed the opening reading I want what I believe I am entitled to which is a bill covering the period from Dec 2021 to Aug 2022 so I can understand what they have charged me for, I still do not have this.    Which bit of how it should work have I misunderstood? Do you think we should just get a direct debit without getting a bill explaining why we owe the money? This is what the supplier and the ombudsman believe. 

The compensation in my case was mainly for the multiple poor levels of service, in incorrect billing, in failing to correctly follow the complaints process, failing to provide a deadlock letter after 8 weeks, failing to say who I could contact to help resolve the issue. 

[Deleted User]

The Energy Ombudsman is part of a private company listed as the TRUST ALLIANCE GROUP LIMITED at Companies House.

Their sole remit is as stated on their website:

‘We were founded in 2002 to provide independent dispute resolution across a range of sectors, including energy and communications.

We’re not a watchdog or a regulator – our job is to resolve complaints - so we can put consumers back into the position they were in before the issue occurred.’

Sadly, as I myself have found out, they get things wrong. I had an Interim Decision that took into account all the facts and came to the only logical conclusion. The supplier appealed; it provided no new evidence but the appeal was upheld by a different investigator with no reasons for the change offered. The Interim Decision immediately became Final.

I raised a complaint against EOS which their CS team dealt with in a very amateurish way. Eventually, I escalated my complaint against EOS to The Independent Assessor who found in my favour. Put simply, EOS got it wrong by overturning its Interim Decision.

ben_glastonbury

[Deleted User] said:

.

We’re not a watchdog or a regulator – our job is to resolve complaints - so we can put consumers back into the position they were in before the issue occurred.’

This is what I do not understand. Surely if the license conditions say an accurate bill should be provided and the contract with the supplier also says they will produce a corrected bill if they cancel a bill why does the ombudsman not tell them to provide an accurate bill. 
It's not just about the money which was mostly put right, but also about correcting an issue of contract, consumer rights. The supplier gets away with it because they know a consumer cannot go to court to force a bill, but the consumer suffers.

[Deleted User]

ben_glastonbury said:

[Deleted User] said:

.

We’re not a watchdog or a regulator – our job is to resolve complaints - so we can put consumers back into the position they were in before the issue occurred.’

This is what I do not understand. Surely if the license conditions say an accurate bill should be provided and the contract with the supplier also says they will produce a corrected bill if they cancel a bill why does the ombudsman not tell them to provide an accurate bill. 
It's not just about the money which was mostly put right, but also about correcting an issue of contract, consumer rights. The supplier gets away with it because they know a consumer cannot go to court to force a bill, but the consumer suffers.

If you are unhappy with EOS' processes not the Decision then raise a complaint against EOS. They do have a complaints' process: albeit, not a very good one.

GoodHouseKeeping

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.

When an energy companies fails a consumer, the consumer is put to varying degress of inconvenience, wasted time and effort, potentially additional costs, destress, upset, anger and frustration.  Ombudsman in general should be awarding consumers with costs that reflect the harm caused.

How else do you thing that the energy companies are not going to plan in poor practice, inconvenience, disregard, long wait times, distress, unprofessional conduct to their business model?

Financial compenstaion that is reflective of the consumer experience is the on;ly way to bring about change.  COmpanies are there to make a profit and soem to report to shareholders - let the CEO explain away the financial cost of poor management, over and over again.