Supplier Failure - Advice re Supplier of Last Resort (SoLR) process not fit for purpose

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

stephenbrowning said:

The MSE system has just filtered out a reply I made to the first comment which also covers a number of misunderstandings of the current SoLR system from that and other comments here.  I've asked MSE for the text I wrote as I dont want to have to type it in again.   

Briefly, your credit with a failing supplier is protected as long as you are their customer at the actual date of Failure.  Dont switch before.  And OFGEM cannot force a Supplier to take on the SoLR role.  Hence the Bulb Energy failure not being covered by that process and taking a long time (including requests for HMG funding) to resolve. 

The point of this thread is to raise awareness of the failings of the Advice and the fact that even the Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot identify what is a systemic failure by the Regulator.  Need more readers to get their MPs involved. To get the facile change to the SoLR process MPAN database extraction query corrected!!

Regards

(Removed by Forum Team)

I agree people need to be more active, but I think one reason they not, is we have to push so much through our MP's that inevitably most of it gets lost, MPs only have so much they can do, they get very limited speaking time in parliament, people know this and as such tend to not bother unless its something they feel really strongly about.  So for this reason I think there needs to be more avenues available to the public on this sort of thing.

Appreciate you made available your previous affiliation with the industry.

Most MPs just do not care, my local MP only cares for himself, the one who is the MP for where my office is, is still banging on about "Brexit Betrayal" and trying to appeal to the ultra-right of the Conservative Party, she will turn up for a ribbon cutting, but is worse than useless in pretty much every other respect. Even the ones who at first glance appear to care about other people, when looked at in detail, seem far more interested in ideology than the actual people it impacts. 

CSI_Yorkshire

If you bother to actually engage with the discussion, rather than simply repeating the same already-tired assertions, you will realise that just because you wanted to switch at that time - although still after the failure as you describe it - doesn't mean that anyone else did.  "I will assume that everyone has the same desire, motivation, knowledge and decision-making outcome as me" is a poor logical technique.

I suggest you try to understand that using the amount of money involved in the industry as a whole to claim that this is a loss due to the SoLR process is on par with those who claim that global oil drilling profits somehow represent profitability of UK retail suppliers.

Given your premise for the huge expense appears based on the "a cheaper tariff was available, therefore everyone would have been on it", why are you not arguing for compulsory switching or no tariff cheaper than the deemed tariff - therefore there would never be any loss?

As you claim such a long and distinguished history in the industry, you will be well aware that "a trivial modification" has been previously demonstrated as nothing of the sort, with a wide range of unintended consequences when previous changes have been made.

You have demonstrated no systemic failure.  You have demonstrated an outcome of the system as exists.  Please, stop just randomly quoting parts of the industry history and irrelevant statistics.  This is an appeal to authority and does not enhance your argument.

Jyana

I can't help thinking that making the process any more complex than it already is will only make the charges even more expensive for customers, as it won't be the companies who pay for what is being proposed here. And with how much the standing charge has risen already from the fall out of the mass closure a couple of years ago, I seriously think you won't have many people swayed to your way of seeing things if it means yet another price hike when it is pretty much unnecessary as far as I can see. 

[Deleted User]

FWiW, I switched from EDF after it became the SoLR for Zog Energy. If I recall the CoS date was the 15th December 2021 and I hate to wait 28 days before initiating another switch due to 'industry background procedures'. Octopus worked out the earliest date that it could initiate a successful switch and the transfer went through without any issues. Getting EDF to produce an accurate Final Bill proved to be altogether more challenging.

I would still opine that the SoLR process works for the vast majority of consumers. Most delays are down to the poor administration of the failed supplier.

I am still not sure what the OP hopes to achieve by highlighting what seems not to have been an issue for the vast majority of consumers? We could all agree with him but it will not move things on in the way that he would like.

Spoonie_Turtle

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

stephenbrowning said:

The MSE system has just filtered out a reply I made to the first comment which also covers a number of misunderstandings of the current SoLR system from that and other comments here.  I've asked MSE for the text I wrote as I dont want to have to type it in again.   

Briefly, your credit with a failing supplier is protected as long as you are their customer at the actual date of Failure.  Dont switch before.  And OFGEM cannot force a Supplier to take on the SoLR role.  Hence the Bulb Energy failure not being covered by that process and taking a long time (including requests for HMG funding) to resolve. 

The point of this thread is to raise awareness of the failings of the Advice and the fact that even the Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot identify what is a systemic failure by the Regulator.  Need more readers to get their MPs involved. To get the facile change to the SoLR process MPAN database extraction query corrected!!

Regards

(Removed by Forum Team)

I agree people need to be more active, but I think one reason they not, is we have to push so much through our MP's that inevitably most of it gets lost, MPs only have so much they can do, they get very limited speaking time in parliament, people know this and as such tend to not bother unless its something they feel really strongly about.  So for this reason I think there needs to be more avenues available to the public on this sort of thing.

Appreciate you made available your previous affiliation with the industry.

Most MPs just do not care, my local MP only cares for himself, the one who is the MP for where my office is, is still banging on about "Brexit Betrayal" and trying to appeal to the ultra-right of the Conservative Party, she will turn up for a ribbon cutting, but is worse than useless in pretty much every other respect. Even the ones who at first glance appear to care about other people, when looked at in detail, seem far more interested in ideology than the actual people it impacts. 

One MP in particular hasn't done a single aspect of her job since June 2022.  Hasn't held a surgery on her constituency since pre-pandemic.

It's therefore even more frustrating when genuine problems occur and people's eventual only possible recourse is to complain to their MP -depending on where they are in the country, they may or may not have one that even pretends to engage.

CSI_Yorkshire

Spoonie_Turtle said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

stephenbrowning said:

The MSE system has just filtered out a reply I made to the first comment which also covers a number of misunderstandings of the current SoLR system from that and other comments here.  I've asked MSE for the text I wrote as I dont want to have to type it in again.   

Briefly, your credit with a failing supplier is protected as long as you are their customer at the actual date of Failure.  Dont switch before.  And OFGEM cannot force a Supplier to take on the SoLR role.  Hence the Bulb Energy failure not being covered by that process and taking a long time (including requests for HMG funding) to resolve. 

The point of this thread is to raise awareness of the failings of the Advice and the fact that even the Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot identify what is a systemic failure by the Regulator.  Need more readers to get their MPs involved. To get the facile change to the SoLR process MPAN database extraction query corrected!!

Regards

(Removed by Forum Team)

I agree people need to be more active, but I think one reason they not, is we have to push so much through our MP's that inevitably most of it gets lost, MPs only have so much they can do, they get very limited speaking time in parliament, people know this and as such tend to not bother unless its something they feel really strongly about.  So for this reason I think there needs to be more avenues available to the public on this sort of thing.

Appreciate you made available your previous affiliation with the industry.

Most MPs just do not care, my local MP only cares for himself, the one who is the MP for where my office is, is still banging on about "Brexit Betrayal" and trying to appeal to the ultra-right of the Conservative Party, she will turn up for a ribbon cutting, but is worse than useless in pretty much every other respect. Even the ones who at first glance appear to care about other people, when looked at in detail, seem far more interested in ideology than the actual people it impacts. 

One MP in particular hasn't done a single aspect of her job since June 2022.  Hasn't held a surgery on her constituency since pre-pandemic.

It's therefore even more frustrating when genuine problems occur and people's eventual only possible recourse is to complain to their MP -depending on where they are in the country, they may or may not have one that even pretends to engage.

That particular MP is a 'good' demonstration of what a lot of them really care about in the background.

There are some truly good ones, I'm sure, even amongst those whose politics I disagree with, but there are some shockers too.

PowerDev

I have 35 years experience starting with Generation and Transmission training the Generation Operation and System Operation (ESO).  Including Real time ops to Fuel-Merit Order Optimisation and introducing computerised Scheduling and Dispatch down to real time.  And adapting ESO systems for Privatisation and then the Market, ensuring we got all the right data (Demand, Generation and Transmission representation) for the overall G to D Power Matching and local security and stability maintenance (Steady state and post any credible fault) at every instant. 
(Note that us of the the Verb 'Balancing', for what the Market then the Operator do,  is actually Engineering Heresy).  I did a lot of IT work and Liason with the programmers as the ESO Development Engineer. 

What is worrying is that Whitehall have the job of ensuring the Government responsibility for the Integrity of Electricity Delivery, which has been so since the Industry was unbundled, is carried out properly.  Noting we did not even have a Minister with Energy in their Portfolio for a few years after Privatisation.  Hopefully now DESNZ and especially DSIT will have the Engineering Expertise.  Noting that the ESIs training programmes (up to degree level) were seriously curtailed and the R&D units shut down in the 1990s (RPI-X Regulation).

And I'm sure MSE has a number of issues which illustrate problems with the Executive and Regulatory bodies. 
And my MPs is certainly very busy.   As I explained any complaint against one of the 'emanations of the State', to use the Eu coined Legal term, has to be put forward via your MP.    

PowerDev

Jyana said:

I can't help thinking that making the process any more complex than it already is will only make the charges even more expensive for customers, as it won't be the companies who pay for what is being proposed here. And with how much the standing charge has risen already from the fall out of the mass closure a couple of years ago, I seriously think you won't have many people swayed to your way of seeing things if it means yet another price hike when it is pretty much unnecessary as far as I can see. 

To make a change to a query which is already reading all the Records in the Table involved is trivial.  The relevant fields in table are   Meter Point Allocation Number, Supplier assigned to same and Date that Supplier was assigned.  Hence anyone who has switched will have more than one record.  The current query only extracts the latest record and not that as at the last date prior to the failure of the Supplier whose Customers the extract is trying to find..  

CSI_Yorkshire

Yes, we know your career history, you linked your personal website on the first post.

This does not make your argument infallible, nor do you get to define what terms or not are "Engineering Heresy".

PowerDev

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

stephenbrowning said:

The MSE system has just filtered out a reply I made to the first comment which also covers a number of misunderstandings of the current SoLR system from that and other comments here.  I've asked MSE for the text I wrote as I dont want to have to type it in again.   

Briefly, your credit with a failing supplier is protected as long as you are their customer at the actual date of Failure.  Dont switch before.  And OFGEM cannot force a Supplier to take on the SoLR role.  Hence the Bulb Energy failure not being covered by that process and taking a long time (including requests for HMG funding) to resolve. 

The point of this thread is to raise awareness of the failings of the Advice and the fact that even the Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot identify what is a systemic failure by the Regulator.  Need more readers to get their MPs involved. To get the facile change to the SoLR process MPAN database extraction query corrected!!

Regards

(Removed by Forum Team)

I agree people need to be more active, but I think one reason they not, is we have to push so much through our MP's that inevitably most of it gets lost, MPs only have so much they can do, they get very limited speaking time in parliament, people know this and as such tend to not bother unless its something they feel really strongly about.  So for this reason I think there needs to be more avenues available to the public on this sort of thing.

Appreciate you made available your previous affiliation with the industry.

Most MPs just do not care, my local MP only cares for himself, the one who is the MP for where my office is, is still banging on about "Brexit Betrayal" and trying to appeal to the ultra-right of the Conservative Party, she will turn up for a ribbon cutting, but is worse than useless in pretty much every other respect. Even the ones who at first glance appear to care about other people, when looked at in detail, seem far more interested in ideology than the actual people it impacts. 

One MP in particular hasn't done a single aspect of her job since June 2022.  Hasn't held a surgery on her constituency since pre-pandemic.

It's therefore even more frustrating when genuine problems occur and people's eventual only possible recourse is to complain to their MP -depending on where they are in the country, they may or may not have one that even pretends to engage.

That particular MP is a 'good' demonstration of what a lot of them really care about in the background.

There are some truly good ones, I'm sure, even amongst those whose politics I disagree with, but there are some shockers too.

Although we are going Off topic I think this article is worth looking at - Scroll down to the panel on Commons Crooks and Cads......

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10123711/Too-decent-lot-SIR-DAVID-AMESS-memoirs-insight-integrity-modesty.html

You do need to filter though this but 
Note the comment on Quangos and those 'pulling the levers of Power'