NPower gas 'sculpting'

meggsy

I now have an answer from the Brighter Energy debate :mad:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1569801

I'm off for a word with Ed Mayo ....

DirectDebacle

meggsy wrote: »

I now have an answer from the Brighter Energy debate :mad:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1569801

I'm off for a word with Ed Mayo ....

Watch they don't pay the 'elastic annual' discount with a rubber cheque.

Another definition from npower

'When we say Direct Debit discount, what we mean is that we discount the fact that you pay by Direct Debit. In other words it doesn't count, so qualifies you for nothing'.

This definition has been approved by Ofgem.

Grumpy4u

Thanks for your support DD and the suggestions for a reply. I will send off an email to that effect and await their response.

No, I have not considered following the breach of contract line. Life is complicated enough!!

Thanks

DirectDebacle

I think Consumer Focus should be looking at this which I found here
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=35&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=2343618&ActiveTextDocId=2343689&filesize=4830 :

This is also of interest
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/About%20us/Documents1/2047_1003.pdf

[F130C.
Time limits on the imposition of penalties.
— (1) Where no final or provisional order has been made in relation to a contravention or failure, the Authority may not impose a penalty in respect of the contravention or failure later than the end of the period of 12 months from the time of the contravention or failure, unless before the end of that period—
(a)
the notice under section 30A(3) relating to the penalty is served on the licence holder under section 30A(7), or

(b)
a notice relating to the contravention or failure is served on the licence holder under section 38(1).


(2) Where a final or provisional order has been made in relation to a contravention or failure, the Authority may not impose a penalty in respect of the contravention or failure unless the notice relating to the penalty under section 30A(3) was served on the licence holder under section 30A(7)—
(a)
within three months from the confirmation of the provisional order or the making of the final order, or

(b)
where the provisional order is not confirmed, within six months from the making of the provisional order.]

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
Ss. 30A-30F inserted (20.12.2000 for specified purposes otherwise 1.10.2001) by 2000 c. 27, s. 95(1); S.I. 2000/3343, art. 2, Sch. (subject to transitional provisions in arts. 3-15); S.I. 2001/3266, arts. 1(2), 2, Sch. (subject to transitional provisions in arts. 3-20)

It would seem to me that the time of the failure was February 2009. Ofgem have investigated a complaint about a change to charging which was made in May 2007. The complaint was that the change was not correctly notified. By default the very fact that the change was not notified meant that the effect of the change was not evident until many months after it came into effect. The change and its' effects were brought to the attention of Ofgem as soon as was practicable by Energywatch and in any event the complaint was lodged with Ofgem within 12 months of the change. Ofgem then took almost a year to investigate the matter.

The change could not be ruled as a breach of licence conditions, or not, until the investigation was complete.

Ofgems' statement that they were out of time to impose sanctions requires further explanation.

It would seem strange that if legislation were drafted in such a way that if a breach were concealed for over 12 months then that breach would be exempt from sanctions.

DirectDebacle

From Ofgems decision to close the case.

Under such two tier tariffs, the first 4572 kWh of usage per year were charged at a higher “Primary Block” rate, with this overall annual total apportioned on a seasonal / monthly basis.

The first change was a revision of the seasonal pricing profile to facilitate system changes. The annual threshold was apportioned going forwards on a flat rate basis and at the same time Npower started a new “tariff year”.

Note the first quote refers to 4572kWh usage per year, whereas the second quote refers to a new "tariff year". It would appear that the first change was not only a revision of the seasonal pricing profile but also included revising a year to a "tariff year". Ofgem should have investigated the invention of the concept of a "tariff year" as a notifiable change in tandem with the seasonal pricing profile. Neither of them had previously been notified to customers and were to remain secret until August 2008.

Failure to notify could constitute a licence breach if the change, “varies any term to the significant disadvantage of the domestic customer or raises the charges”. Ofgem therefore decided to open an investigation into Npower’s compliance with this licence
obligation.

The first 4572kWh per year was a term altered by npower. It was altered to 4572kWh per "tariff year". Why did Ofgem not include this variation in their investigation.

The seasonal profile was re-introduced with effect from 1 November 2007 and again Npower started a new tariff year. It appears that customers were correctly notified of this change.

Where is the evidence of this notification.

On 2 July 2008, Npower provided further information and confirmed that there was no definition of “tariff year” given to customers.

In July 2008 customers are still unaware of the existence of the "tariff year" yet Ofgem state that customers were properly notified of changes that included the start of a new "tariff year", 8 months earlier in November 2007. Something not adding up here.

On 17 September 2008, Npower responded with further information about single and dual fuel customers comparing a “no change” position to the May 2007 changes and provided details of seasonal consumption. It also stated that a new tariff year began on the change in charging structure.

Hmmm. Hadn't npower already notified customers of this in November, 2007. All very confusing isn't it.

The extent of the impact appeared to depend on the consumption levels of individual consumers and the time period over which the assessment was made.

Precisely. The extent of the impact also depends on whether you use a year or a "tariff year" and accept npowers claim that correct notification to customers was given in November 2007 but that the information required to give the correct notification still hadn't been given to customers by July, 2008.

I wonder how much this 'investigation' cost us, the taxpayer. Probably not as much as it has cost us, the consumer, or ones faith in regulatory bodies.

hvaghela

Hi All

This is a follow on from my post #1119 (page 56). I still haven't had a reply after the inital letter from nPower dated 31.3.9. Should I hold tight for another couple of weeks or write again them?

Thanks again for the advice.

DirectDebacle

hvaghela wrote: »

Hi All

This is a follow on from my post #1119 (page 56). I still haven't had a reply after the inital letter from nPower dated 31.3.9. Should I hold tight for another couple of weeks or write again them?

Thanks again for the advice.

Have a read of this (you are probably familiar with it) the Putting Things Right propaganda.

http://www.npower.com/prod_contribb/groups/wcms_content/@wcms/@busi/documents/digitalassets/puttingthingsright100108.pdf

Difficult to see where they have fulfilled any of their promises. I wouldn't bother waiting. Write now asking for a response within 7 days or you will go straight to the Ombudsman.

hvaghela

Thanks DD

They sent that leaflet with their letter.
I'll take you're learned advice and send them a recorded letter tomorrow.

Grumpy4u

This is a follow up of my ealier posting #1144.
I sent an email to the Complaints people and have just received an unbelievably ungrammatical reply (after a reminder!). If this is the best they can achieve, no wonder that are in a mess. Read on and have a good chuckle! Is this meant to be a joke, I wonder!

Hello Mr xxx
Thanks you for your e-mail, please accept my apologises for the delay in replying to you. I am not sure what further information we are requiring from you, I believe the wrong letter may have been sent out to you,:T as we have been unable to contact you by phone as we have no contact telephone number for you.

However I can see your complaint was in relation to gas sculpting and that you feel you were over charged from 05/02/07 to 05/02/08 as we billed 6353 at the higher rate.

We do bill 4572 per year for the higher rate, however if a price change has occurred within the year, this reverts back to 0, as we bill tariff year as apposed to annual year, therefore when a when price changes occurred 30/04/07 and 05/01/08 and the sculpting rest to 0 this is the reason you have been charged 6353 at the higher rate.

I have placed your complaint on to a spreadsheet to have a more detailed letter regarding this sent out to you.

Your patients has been appreciated.

Kind regards
xxx (name removed to avoid embarrassment!)
Complaints team



Dear Mr xxx
Thank you for your letter of 7th April. I accept your apology for the delay in replying to my original letter of 7th March. It is indeed not the level of service I expect.

I am at a loss to understand why it is taking so long and that you apparently "need some more information" in order to resolve my query.

You surely have all my records showing how much I have been charged and how much I have paid. How then can you possibly need more information from me? This matter can surely be settled by the press of the appropriate button.

I look forward to a speedy settlement of my claim within the next fourteen days. Failing this, I will be forced to initiate recovery proceedings

DirectDebacle

Grumpy4u wrote: »

Is this meant to be a joke, I wonder?

No it isn't a joke. It is from Vlad who does the Compare the Meercat ads. Translated it means 'we will send you another letter full of pathetic excuses'. Simples.

I would sharpen my recuvery plotseedlings penisil fi i Wure yoo.:D