NPower gas 'sculpting'

aelitaman

Sterling wrote: »

When we receive a computerised bill for our gas or electricity we naturally expect that, provided it contains the correct opening and closing meter readings, the rest of the bill will have been worked out correctly; so much so, that most of us don’t bother to check this.

But there is at least one energy company out there that, despite all its computerised technology, seems to make a myriad of mistakes for no obvious reason at all.

I speak of Npower. Yes – I’m still with them as a gas customer. Well, they are still the cheapest for me; and I suppose I have got used to their little ways… bless.

Anyhow, in December I received my paperless gas bill, covering the period 15/07/09 – 02/12/09 (for some reason I only get two bills a year now), and that bill showed the number of kWh’s charged at the high tier rate over the period in question to be 1383.

However, when I checked this (I have learned not to take Npower’s word for anything) my calculations gave a figure of 1326, some 57 kWh less. Not an earth shattering difference I’ll grant you, but still a difference of close to £3.00 in their favour, including VAT.

So, I sent Npower a friendly email, pointing out that they appeared to have made a mistake; and suggesting that perhaps they would like to remedy it by putting a credit on the next bill due June 2010.

I received a short but firm email from Npower in response telling me that I was wrong and that their bill was right. They also sent me a PDF version of Npower’s “How to Work Out Your Gas Bill”. This dreadful piece of work succeeds in making a gas sculpting calculation seem so unnecessarily complicated that I find myself wondering if it wasn’t deliberately designed to baffle as many customers as humanly possible.

I replied by saying I was familiar with the work, and that my calculations were based upon it, and that their figure and mine were still 57 kWh’s apart. I set out my calculations that gave 1326 and asked how they arrived at their figure of 1383. I received the following in reply. I have put their words in blue to avoid confusion.

“...I do agree with your calculation, the reason that there is a difference of 57 KWH's in your and our calculation is that in your calculation you have worked it out up to 02/12/09, even though we received the reading that was taken 02/12/09 your bill was due for 04/12/09 for the purpose of gas sculpting we will still bill to this date. Two extra days in December is how we have an extra 57 KWH's at the higher rate.”

Although this explanation seemed really dodgy to me, it was clear Npower had no intention of budging; so I emailed back asking a few loaded questions, which brought about an immediate climb down by Npower. Here is what I wrote in case it helps anyone else.



Later that very day I received a phone call from a very charming lady from Npower agreeing that I had been right all along; and that the person who had been dealing with my enquiry “will be sent for further training”. I wonder.

No explanation was offered to me as to how Npower’s computer system got its calculations wrong. But the fact is that it did get its figures wrong. If the same mistake was made to all 2.2 million of its two tier tariff customers, Npower would be around £6.3 million better off (excluding VAT). No doubt Npower would say this couldn’t happen; but then again they told me twice that the bill I queried was correct when it wasn’t.

Further Training! sounds very 1984 or Nu Labourish.

Sterling

Sterling wrote: »

At this point I would like to pay a most sincere tribute to my MP (for South Derbyshire), Mark Todd, who I first contacted in early May 2009. His reply had been most encouraging and supportive; and it was a great relief to find that Mr Todd already possessed a clear and fundamental grasp of the complex issues involved, both as regards Ofgem’s failings and Npower’s gas sculpting antics.

I’m very glad to see that the efforts of Mark Todd MP have been mentioned in the latest of a series of excellent articles in The Times by Mark Atherton. Contrary to Npower’s wishes, this matter refuses to go away.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article7013424.ece

Sterling

I have now heard from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman service (PHSO) that they have taken legal advice regarding my complaint against Ofgem, and that they expect to contact me again within the next six weeks, after they have written to Ofgem.

As regular readers of this thread will know, I am attempting to persuade the PHSO to conduct a full investigation into Ofgem’s shambles of an investigation into Npower’s gas sculpting antics in 2007, with a view to declaring that Ofgem was guilty of maladministration in its handling of the Energywatch complaint about Npower.

Newcomers to this thread may ask – why bother? The answer is that 2.2 million Npower gas customers were overcharged by a total of £100 million, and Ofgem failed in its duty as energy regulator to obtain full refunds for all but a few of those customers. In other words, while the public and Parliament believed that each and every energy consumer in the land enjoyed a proper level of consumer protection, the protection afforded by Ofgem is little more than a puff of smoke. With a regulator like Ofgem the consumer is defenceless against scams like Npower’s.

To cap it all, Ofgem declined even to consider whether Npower had been in breach of its own contractual terms with its customers. That simple step, followed by a public declaration that Npower was in breach would surely have been of considerable assistance to customers claiming a refund. It would have prevented Npower from putting up its phoney defences and misleading so many of its customers to the point where they were put off claiming what they were owed. But Ofgem ducked even that simple task.

At present Ofgem is seeking extra powers, but the truth of the matter is that Ofgem has many powers already and has clearly demonstrated that far from being a protector of the public, it is a protector of the energy supply companies. This attitude is so endemic and imbedded in that organisation that it will therefore never be fit for purpose – and it should be scrapped and replaced with something run upon more independent lines (with completely different staff).

However, apart from the customers who have been properly compensated (after much persistence or threats of legal action), that still leaves around 2.2 million customers who are still out of pocket, many being too frail to make a claim unaided. Since Ofgem has failed dismally, to protect these people, it looked for a while like Npower would get to keep the £100 million that belongs to its affected customers.

But maybe just… maybe there is a way of righting this wrong after all. Many posts ago Cardew rightly mentioned the possibility of a “class action”. He indicated that this is much used in the USA, and that this matter would have long since been resolved over there. Unfortunately, this concept is in its infancy under English law, but it is beginning to look as though a collective or representative action could perhaps be brought against Npower along similar lines in this country after all. I suspect that there will be a mention of this in one of Mark Atherton’s excellent articles in The Times in the not too distant future.

sofa-spud

OK, first time poster and new member, can't believe I've missed this until now:o

DirectDebacle wrote: »

In addition to the above remember the first 'sculpt' occurred in the year 1/4/04-31/3/05. On 1/10/04 npower changed from a 'flat' Primary Block rate (381 per month) to a seasonally weighted rate. This would have resulted in a maximum overcharge on the high rate units of 911.

I have been (and still am for the present) one of their 'cash cows' since before the dates mentioned. I have gone back through all my bills since 14/11/03 which is the earliest I still have. I have like many others found I've been overcharged and want to do something about reclaiming.

So if there is some lucky and brave person out there who was with npower prior to around July 2004 and stayed with them until around April 2008 (there must be hundreds at least) then by combining Sterlings hourly expenses rate with a breach of contract claim the £2k barrier could be easily broken, which would be nice.

Any takers?

Anyone want to give advice and/or opinion as to the best way to formulate the amount?
I know several have done so but I have calculated several different figures based on whether I calculate the 'error' on each billed period or group them into a year. By my calculations I have been overcharged every year since 2004 through to 2008. This is in addition to 2 other errors I have found since going back and checking:o
The figures range from £100 to over £500 if I use DirectDebacle's method of re-calculating all bills from the first error to Nov 2008 (when I received proper notice from them of 'seasonal weighting'.

DirectDebacle

sofa-spud wrote: »

By my calculations I have been overcharged every year since 2004 through to 2008. This is in addition to 2 other errors I have found since going back and checking:o
The figures range from £100 to over £500 if I use DirectDebacle's method of re-calculating all bills from the first error to Nov 2008 (when I received proper notice from them of 'seasonal weighting'.

Hi and welcome to the thread.

If you opt for my method of claim then essentially there are two periods where the overcharging occurred.

These are 1/4/2004-31/3/2005 and 1/4/2007 - 31/3/2008.

Unless you are extremely lucky your bills will not fall precisely on these dates so you will have to work out the amount of high rate units you were actually charged over these periods and deduct 4572 from each figure. The overcharge is the price difference between the high and low units * the extra units overcharged plus VAT @ 5% for each year. Don't forget that 2008 was a leap year when calculating.

The second part of my method (without going into the contractual side of the argument at this stage) is to calculate separately the cost of the high rate units and low rate units on your bills ( in other words the total kWh used) using the prices applicable on 31/3/2003. There will be a single rate for gas and a daily standing charge.

This applies if you were an npower customer on or before 31/3/2003. I note you do not have all your bills. Request the missing ones from npower. If you joined npower after 31/3/2003 use the prices applicable at the time you joined.

Total all your bills from 1/4/2004 to Nov 2008. If this is more than the above calculation this will represent your claim for the breach of contract.

Next calculate your costs for doing this work. Sterling used an hourly rate which I considered to be on the high side. This does not matter. As long as you can justify your costs as reasonable (which may mean to a court) then that is what matters. I am thoroughly in favour of claimants receiving as much as they can from npower.

You now have the basis for your claim. The finer points can be gone into later but at this stage it is important that you file an initial complaint and claim with npower a.s.a.p. There is a six year deadline for county court claims and the cut off for the 2004 'sculpt' is not far off.

Ensure that all correspondence is sent recorded delivery and that you keep all copies. If you send the claim by email send a recorded delivery copy the same day preferably, or as soon as you can afterwards. Receipt of emails can be denied but a signature for an envelope can't. Print off the receipts from the Royal Mail website when they appear.

Check with the Energy Ombudsman if they will deal with your type (breach of contract) claim. It is most likely they won't but I know in August 2008 (from papers obtained under the FOI that they were dealing with some 'sculpting' claims.) You must do this before commencing court proceedings.

If your claim progresses as far as issuing court papers then you will have to show the court that you explored other means of resolving the dispute before taking court action. An email to the Energy Ombudsman with brief details of your claim will cover this aspect. Of course if they will deal with it then that is the course of action to follow if negotiations with npower fail. The Energy Ombudsman can deal with claims of up to £5000. If you do not agree with their decision court action is still an option.

Getting a little ahead of ourselves but no harm in outlining the broad procedure from the start.

First thing is to decide which method you wish to use for the claim and get the ball rolling by lodging your claim with npower.

As a side issue which may be of benefit to you is that within the next week or two I fully expect there to be an article in a respected national newspaper about this 2004/2005 overcharging.

Good luck and do not hesitate to come back for any further help.

You can use my claim as a guide (not a template!) and it can be found here.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article4962433.ece

sofa-spud

Hi DD,
thanks for the quick reply. I did try to reply earlier but this website decided to throw a wobbly and let me enter the reply, but not post it...:mad:

Ok,
As I only have bills from 19/8/03 I was going to use them for the reason of not wanting to cause delay waiting for Npwr to send copies. I have been on their standard tariff throughout this period and simply used the 2 tier rates as of 19/8/03 (2.28p & 1.38p)

Using your idea,
I have re-calculated all my bills by summing the T1 units charged up to the max allowed in a year and * by 2.28p, the remainder used in the year I * by 1.38p
This gives me a figure of £518.47p inc VAT for the period 19/8/03 to 5/8/08 inc(this being the last charges before proper notification to me)

As my bills align to the month of may each year I have used this as the break points. Needless to add there is never a break point exactly 365(or 366) days, so I have interpolated/extrapolated as appropriate.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The second part of my method (without going into the contractual side of the argument at this stage) is to calculate separately the cost of the high rate units and low rate units on your bills ( in other words the total kWh used) using the prices applicable on 31/3/2003. There will be a single rate for gas and a daily standing charge.

Why do you refer to 31/3/03? is this the date they dropped the standing charge in favour of the 2 tier charging?
I (perhaps wrongly) thought your argument on breach of contract was because of the sculpting?

Next calculate your costs for doing this work. Sterling used an hourly rate which I considered to be on the high side. This does not matter. As long as you can justify your costs as reasonable (which may mean to a court) then that is what matters. I am thoroughly in favour of claimants receiving as much as they can from npower.

I thought if you charged the hourly rate you are paid in your day job this would be reasonable?

You now have the basis for your claim. The finer points can be gone into later but at this stage it is important that you file an initial complaint and claim with npower a.s.a.p. There is a six year deadline for county court claims and the cut off for the 2004 'sculpt' is not far off.

Does the 6 year limit apply to the date court papers are filed?
I seem to recall there is a way to file them and put them on hold while I communicate with Npwr? is this what you refer to as an 'initial complaint'?

Check with the Energy Ombudsman if they will deal with your type (breach of contract) claim. It is most likely they won't but I know in August 2008 (from papers obtained under the FOI that they were dealing with some 'sculpting' claims.) You must do this before commencing court proceedings.

Will do ASAP

First thing is to decide which method you wish to use for the claim and get the ball rolling by lodging your claim with npower.

I did try the simple method of taking the overcharge number of T1 each year and * by (T1-T2) to arrive at a figure of £95.60. I have decided against this as it implies I accept the application by them of seasonal weighting. As many before have said I feel they are in breach of contract up until 11/11/08 when I received proper notification of sculpting. This in addition to them charging more then 4572 T1 units/year.

As a side issue which may be of benefit to you is that within the next week or two I fully expect there to be an article in a respected national newspaper about this 2004/2005 overcharging.

Good luck and do not hesitate to come back for any further help.

You can use my claim as a guide (not a template!) and it can be found here.

There was a brief piece on radio 2 today around 1pm, unfortunately Fern Britten is standing in for Jeremy Vine so the guest got off VERY lightly:(

The link you included does not work for me, gives an error 404 (page not found)

thanks for your advice, all is welcome.

sofa-spud

I think I need someone with a clear thought on this...
As above I have followed the common approach and summed any discrepancies over a period of a year to arrive at my figure(s).
However...
If I take each bill and uniformly distribute the 4572 units for a year to the number of days covered by each bill I come out with an appreciably larger figure. This of course is due to my very light use during the summer months, and so fails to 'iron out' my irregular use during the whole year, but I wonder if the argument has any merit?

Thoughts?

KimYeovil

Seasonal weighting per se is not unfair or wrong. It is not the core complaint. You should still distribute just 4572 tier 1 units according to how nPower said they would be distributed to calculate what you should have paid.

Cardew

sofa-spud wrote: »

I think I need someone with a clear thought on this...
As above I have followed the common approach and summed any discrepancies over a period of a year to arrive at my figure(s).
However...
If I take each bill and uniformly distribute the 4572 units for a year to the number of days covered by each bill I come out with an appreciably larger figure. This of course is due to my very light use during the summer months, and so fails to 'iron out' my irregular use during the whole year, but I wonder if the argument has any merit?

Thoughts?

That of course is the declared intent of 'seasonal weighting' i.e. to ensure that more of their customers pay the full standing charge.

Some customers switch off their gas for the summer months, or use very little gas, and so avoided paying the full annual standing charge.

BG overcame this to a certain extent by reducing the number of tier 1 units from 4,572 to 2,680 and increasing the price of those units to compensate.

So, as Kim above states, you have no argument against 'seasonal weighting' as such. The complaint about Npower in this thread is they suspended 'seasonal weighting' during the summer and this caused virtually all of their customers to pay for more than 4,572 Tier 1 units in a 12 month period - often paying for over 2,000 additional Tier1 units.

NPower's defence is that although their terms and conditions state that customers will be charged for 4,572 Tier 1 units a year, Npower can redefine the length of a year!!!!

sofa-spud

Cardew wrote: »

That of course is the declared intent of 'seasonal weighting' i.e. to ensure that more of their customers pay the full standing charge.

Some customers switch off their gas for the summer months, or use very little gas, and so avoided paying the full annual standing charge.

BG overcame this to a certain extent by reducing the number of tier 1 units from 4,572 to 2,680 and increasing the price of those units to compensate.

So, as Kim above states, you have no argument against 'seasonal weighting' as such. The complaint about Npower in this thread is they suspended 'seasonal weighting' during the summer and this caused virtually all of their customers to pay for more than 4,572 Tier 1 units in a 12 month period - often paying for over 2,000 additional Tier1 units.

NPower's defence is that although their terms and conditions state that customers will be charged for 4,572 Tier 1 units a year, Npower can redefine the length of a year!!!!

I agree with you both that seasonal weighting was intended to catch people just like myself, that's not my reasoning. My argument is the fact that I was not informed of a change that, given my useage patterns, caused me to pay more for the same quantity of energy.
Before the issue of sculpting they sent me quarterly statements which contained the 4572 units/year divided equally across the period i.e. 4572*(number of days on statement/days in the year). From this they set the precendent of how the bill's were calculated. My idea is to simply adopt their method to determine the amount of overcharge.

I believe Npower were fully aware of this and they cannot possibly show that a high user would pay less because of the introduction of sculpting alone. The effect from their intorduction of sculpting was that nobody would pay less, & some would pay more. This being the case they were required to notify customers of the change and give them the opportuninty to accept or go elsewhere.

As I said it is an idea and I appreciate you both taking the time to give your opinion.

I dont want to come across as being greedy, but I feel I have been well & truly shafted by them and want help ensure they suffer the consequences of their behaviour toward their customers. The only way I feel they will notice this is in the impact to their bank balance.

As an aside, based on the current difference between T1 & T2 unit prices it gives (for someone paying for the full 4572 T1 units/year) a 'standing charge' element of £268.47p/year or 73.55p per day. How does this compare to anyone on a standing charge type tariff?