Smart Meters Supplier IHD Customer Exploitation

Ildhund

I'm sorry, but I really feel that expressions like '… organizations lying …' and ' … they have no such records …' should be avoided (unless the intention is to shock, of course). You can't possibly know what records a supplier has. I know that DCC has a record of the date when an installed IHD was commissioned, and that record is available to the supplier concerned. I imagine that some suppliers will make a note of it on the customer's account.

The fact that the DCC data about my equipment aren't currently available to me is neither here nor there.

indefatigablesaver

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865020#Comment_81865020

Sorry but the organisation literally told me their agent had lied and stated the communication I received was unacceptable after many many hours of my time had been taken up getting the IHD I was due free-of-charge, and they told me the agent not only didn't have access to such records you are referring to regarding a supposed date they claimed an IHD had been supplied (after weeks of dispute) but they also told me that their agents had misrepresented a meter install data as a date of IHD installation, so some of their agents were definitely lying either as the supplier told me or because you are now saying that's false!

Sorry if you don't like the content of statements but I'm merely sharing the facts of what happened and what the big six supplier told me about the debacle!

If you don't like this, that then maybe we have more in common than you realise!

EssexHebridean

Your statements though were not specific to your situation - you used "Organisations" (plural) and "multiple customers" - which then turned your own evidence (anecdotal in research terms, or at best with a sample size of 1 and so essentially anecdotal) into an inference that this is a wholesale and widespread situation. This use of language was true of your opening post too - hence others including me calling it out as potential fearmongering. As upsetting as what has happened to you is, that doesn't mean that organisations are systematically trying to rip off other customers, elderly or otherwise, and making statements that they are IS fearmongering I'm afraid.

As great as it would be to have a scenario where a working IHD is considered to be part of the smart meter functionality, that isn't the case at the moment, and if an IHD ceases to work after its warranty period, it's likely that most people will either need to make use of a device like the Octopus Mini if they are with octopus, or to purchase a new IHD if that is the available option for them. In one of the posts you cited as evidence to back up your case, there was a simple misunderstanding that the Octopus mini would be useable with another supplier holding the account - which is of course not the case. In that instance it seems as though the original IHD may have been lost or broken, but again, it was "out of warranty" and so the purchase of a replacement would indeed be required.

I agree with you that in an ideal world IHDs would always be operational and available to those who want them, but suggesting that suppliers are in effect deliberately stopping them working in order to charge customers for replacement are far-fetched and unhelpful, particularly in an environment where a lot of people already have unfounded fears around the new generation of energy meters generally.

indefatigablesaver

There are multiple others in same situation, so personal attacks here are ridiculous.

If I don't mention a company by name and talk about shared experiences deliberately to avoid tarring one company or coming across as targetting them I'm too general, if I back up with my personal examples I'm wrong for talking just about myself… basically don't share bad experiences here and call for change as you'll be shouted down either way it seems.

I encourage others do your research as not all of us can post links, MSE has a page that shows there are multiple energy companies that clearly have (financial) arrangements with individual IHD suppliers that they put onto the customer as a cost for the customer to purchase, it seems obvious these companies have a financial incentive to get customers to buy these (even when they shouldn't have as per citizens advice the government principles and their own supposed company polices), hardly then surprising the multiple people in this situation who are posting separately about this issue.

There are suppliers that do not do this and still provide these IHD replacements free as we agree should be the case. I have extensive experience with both the suppliers with the arrangement where customers pay for IHD and those where the supplier always sorts it and those where customer pays are clearly acting very differently to those that don't.

The way companies are acting has affected multiple people enough for multiple posts sharing the same experience recently posting here.

Unfortunately, suppliers' policy on IHDs is not something they are made to advertise clearly when you switch (as you are for example with a router when signing up for broadband) and so these costs very much come across as hidden costs that a customer wouldn't expect. I think there's been broad agreement here that suppliers should be responsible for IHDs so this statement shouldn't hopefully be attacked as well.

Thought this was a consumer rights championing forum, but comes across as a place for apologists for large energy companies!

indefatigablesaver

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866118#Comment_81866118

Actually you have not accurately represented one other case in your biased summary:

1. the octopus mini was less than 12 months old and working fine, its functionality was bricked by the switch to E.On therefore this is a case of an IHD equivalent being bricked by supplier(s) during switch as well as an IHD no longer working within 12 months, therefore citizens advice and government principles suggest suppliers responsibility to sort/replace,

2. the OP stated they disputed what E.On were claiming (exactly same situation as me where energy supplier makes false claims an IHD has been supplied when smart meter installed by assuming this is always the case). In my case the supplier apologised and told me that they had misrepresented smart meter install data as IHD install/provision data.

After a lengthy investigation the supplier stated they do not have or make use of any records of whether IHD supplied or not, the supplier also acknowledged that installers do not necessarily leave an IHD at a property if not able to gain access and often do not leave an IHD for newbuilds so they (eventually) stated if a customer states none was left that should suffice and stated their representatives saying otherwise earlier and stating I should buy one were apparently acting rogue.

As my experience sounds almost identical to the OP's situation and therefore very reasonable I suggest to them they probably have also been lied to by their supplier or their rogue agents who were most likely misrepresenting smart meter install as IHD supply as the supplier told me they did to me. In both cases this was clearly wrong as properties were not inhabited and so it was not possible for installer to gain access to property and test and install IHD.

Therefore I am right to suggest to the OP that they seek a free of charge IHD, prolonged push back in my case resulted in the supplier belatedly admitting they were wrong.

As already discussed if the installer does ever test an IHD from outside the property using a battery to test the network that might make it appear an IHD was installed based on connection logs but there is no database to record that the IHD is delivered to customer or not in that situation.

A quick glance at google AI states "it is very common for new build homes to be fitted with smart meters but for the In-Home Display (IHD) to be missing, often due to stock shortages at the time of installation".

The one thing that is very clear from all this, is that something needs to change to protect consumers.

EssexHebridean

There are multiple others in same situation, so personal attacks here are ridiculous.

There is no "personal attack" - just explanations of why what you are saying is incorrect/fearmongering. It's right that people call out fearmongering behaviour when they see it - it's dangerous.

there are multiple energy companies that clearly have (financial) arrangements with individual IHD suppliers that they put onto the customer as a cost for the customer to purchase

Yes - because the energy suppliers are just that - energy suppliers, NOT tech companies, therefore it makes far more sense for them to send the customer directly to the manufacturer to purchase the thing. Would you perhaps prefer if they bought them in, and then supplied them to customers at a £10 per item mark-up? This is a money-saving forum first and foremost, and I really don't think we should be encouraging behaviour that increases people's costs!

Also - the BIB is pretty close to the knuckle unless you have proof of that - you're accusing big companies of taking backhanders.

The way companies are acting has affected multiple people enough for multiple posts sharing the same experience recently posting here.

Remember that these forums are ALWAYS going to attract far more people with complaints than people praising organisations. Very few people are going to post here telling us that their IHD works perfectly and they are very happy with everything. The "multiple people" is a miniscule proportion of energy customers, and a fair number of those who DO post do so because of a misunderstanding, or a feeling that they "should" have an unlimited warranty for replacement on an IHD regardless of why they no longer have access to the old one.

Thought this was a consumer rights championing forum, but comes across as a place for apologists for large energy companies!

Ahh yes - the good old "shill for the suppliers" argument - we see this frequently, strangely enough always in a situation where someone has been disagreed with, corrected, or called out for misinformation! For clarity - trying to ensure that factual information is presented is NOT suggestive of someone being in the energy company's pockets in any way.

EssexHebridean

1. the octopus mini was less than 12 months old and working fine, its functionality was bricked by the switch to E.On therefore this is a case of an IHD equivalent being bricked by supplier(s) during switch as well as an IHD no longer working within 12 months, therefore citizens advice and government principles suggest suppliers responsibility to sort/replace,

No - the Octopus Mini is a completely separate device - in most cases it is requested by the customer as an addition to the IHD, not as a replacement for one. Your argument here is equivalent to someone switching their entire house to electricity only and then complaining that their gas cooker no longer works. This is representative of the "misunderstanding" aspect - the person concerned made the (false) assumption that the mini would continue to work - it was never going to and is not designed or intended to.

I haven't in any way suggested that in your specific situation you weren't correct to push back, just that you need to stop conflating a small number of people having a problem with "the energy suppliers are trying to rip off elderly people across the board" - a statement which there is simply no evidence to support.

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81869659#Comment_81869659

1. the octopus mini was less than 12 months old and working fine, its functionality was bricked by the switch to E.On therefore this is a case of an IHD equivalent being bricked by supplier(s) during switch as well as an IHD no longer working within 12 months, therefore citizens advice and government principles suggest suppliers responsibility to sort/replace,

The Mini is not an IHD and it was not "bricked", the customer chose to move away from the service provider who provided the back end for it, that is very different. What you think in relation to the rules is irrelevant, as is the incorrect information on the CA website.

A quick glance at google AI states "it is very common for new build homes to be fitted with smart meters but for the In-Home Display (IHD) to be missing, often due to stock shortages at the time of installation".

The main reason is that they are mass installed and the installer never bothers unboxing them, the box then gets thrown away when the housebuilders tidy up after fit out.

The one thing that is very clear from all this, is that something needs to change to protect consumers.

The IHD was and will remain an almost pointless gimmick that due to the specs and build cost dictated by the government is prone to failure. It makes far more sense to delete it as it currently exists from the smart meter specifications and open up the data access at a local level, which is already technically possible, any basic Zigbee module should be able to do this (Octopus Mini, or another device that costs a few pounds to make). Consumers do not need protecting, having an IHD has become a pointless waste of money.

indefatigablesaver

The OP stated they were offered an IHD or an octopus mini interchangeably… the customer is always wrong to you, funny that.

indefatigablesaver

People can read here the straw man fallacies and the misrepresenting of my case and the other referenced OPs case by those presenting "facts" which prove to be immaterial or actually just suggest the supplier has lied but a different way.

In the end you resort to just stating the IHD is a waste of money when it's clear I have many points that "facts" cant refute.

vox populae vox dei