Standing charges, broken smart meters and more – Energy Secretary responds to Martin Lewis

wrf12345

"As the government is us, that means taxpayers paying, which is roughly equivalent to bill payers (although not entirely as so few people are net contributors)." Er, no, if there is a fault with the meter then the manufacturer or wholesale supplier will have to pay, if fitted incorrectly then the fitter or his employer should pay.

TheElectricCow

wrf12345 said:

"As the government is us, that means taxpayers paying, which is roughly equivalent to bill payers (although not entirely as so few people are net contributors)." Er, no, if there is a fault with the meter then the manufacturer or wholesale supplier will have to pay, if fitted incorrectly then the fitter or his employer should pay.

And where do those manufacturers and fitters get their money from?

Qyburn

It's a reasonable point of view, if a product is faulty then the manufacturer should have some liability. Of course I mean actually faulty, not obsolete like SMETS1, or unable to work due to installation conditions.  Not many product warranties include consequential loss like the cost of  a return visit to install a replacement. How long should they be warranted for?

But I don't think anyone's come up with even a rough idea of home many new smart meter are actually faulty, as in a replacement needs to be supplied and installed.

BobT36

MeteredOut said:

BobT36 said:

90% meters working, but how many actually get tested, or conveniently "lost" when sent for testing? Considering @MeteredOut's thread..

My gas meter that was incrementing even whilst disconnected from the mains gas was not a smart meter.

Good point, but I'm not ragging on smart meters specifically here, just the supplier's actions with you where it took a LOT to get them to agree to test it, then it actually got there ok, was tested and found significantly faulty. 

Just how many meters (smart or no) don't get agreed to test, then arrive there ok, then have it confirmed how faulty it was, or even noticed in the first place at all? That's what I wonder.. 
There's so many chances for incorrectly working ones to never be confirmed, that I think it's hard to claim that "90% are working" when we just don't know, as the suppliers are actively trying to prevent them being tested even when there is an obvious fault. 

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

"As the government is us, that means taxpayers paying, which is roughly equivalent to bill payers (although not entirely as so few people are net contributors)." Er, no, if there is a fault with the meter then the manufacturer or wholesale supplier will have to pay, if fitted incorrectly then the fitter or his employer should pay.

You seem to be missing the point. The suppliers can only fit approved meters, they are in fact compelled to fit those meters or they face fines. The government sets which meters are approved and the contracts specify fault rates, as everything supplied at vast scale has a failure rate, consumer electronics, cars, dumb meters, smart meters, even cutlery. You demand that suppliers foot the bill for "failures" is not rational or reasonable.

Secondly many of the 10% that are claimed as not working fully are working as meters, but are not working in smart mode due to limitations of geography or engineering, there is no "fault" in those situations, the smart meter installed in a home in the bottom of a Welsh valley, in parts of the Yorkshire Moors or the Scottish Highlands are not expected to work in smart mode, neither is a meter installed in a basement or metal meter box. Longer term there will be technological solutions to those issues, but the meter is not faulty either, expecting the supplier to be carry the cost for that is also unreasonable.

Chrysalis

The response seems alright, its good Ofgem were pressed by the secretary of state and explains why that consultation happened.  Also good news that faulty smart meters will now be a recognised priority problem.

WHD they can definitely do better, but it is good they adjusted the criteria to allow more to qualify after the underspend.

It seems crazy that a minister seems more on the ball than the regulator itself and has had to nudge them.

Looking at matt's response above, has it been clarified if a smart meter that is no longer smart is recognised as faulty under the upcoming changes?  As ultimately the purpose of a smart meter is to automate data collection, when it ceases to do that it should of course be considered faulty.  To clarify I mean when they were working initially and are in proximity to a signal to transmit data.

Also another response above mentions meters that are not faulty, but are just now obsolete so can no longer function with automatic data transmission, I would like to think customers with one of those meters are offered a solution to revert to something that actually functions as a smart meter.