NPower gas 'sculpting'

Cardew

c0113tt3 wrote: »

Now really, do you believe that crap that npower have fed the times

I would be one of the last to defend NPower for anything and they were obviously wrong in your case.

However the explanation they gave for Mrs Pool's case makes perfect sense and is consistent with the approach other companies take. It is a fact that consumtion in January is on average higher than the earlier part of her quarter.

Mrs Pool's(false) argument was the daily consuption should be the same for every day in the quarter and no company calculates in that manner.

Even if they did calculate it in the manner she wanted it would mean that approx 50 fewer units would be charged at the new price rate; which would have meant her bill would have been reduced by well under one pound.

For the Times to start attacking NPower for something where they are not in the wrong and for such small sums, will be a distraction from the major scam involving multi-millions.

meggsy

More evidence of the deception of npower !

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/80024

Even more astounded by the Energywatch statement !

DirectDebacle

Below is the latest all new singing and dancing version of the 'tariff year'. So glad it has been simplified. Now even npower might understand it.



'Gas supplied is charged at two rates. The first or "Primary Block" rate is the more expensive and is charged per annum on the first 4,572 kWh("units") of gas consumed by means of an allocation of a specific quantity of Primary Block units in each month according to the method of allocation of those units, or billing "Cycle" applied. Consumption over that quantity is charged at a lower rate (the "Follow-On rate). It is possible for a Cycle to be interrupted and for a new Cycle to begin as explained below.

There are two approaches to this month by month Cycle.The first is to create a shaped approach to charging so that a differing quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This reflects higher customer usage of gas during the winter months and conversely, lower usage in the summer months and allows the supplier to recover a greater proportion of fixed costs during the periods of greater supply volume. This is known as Seasonally Weighted" charging. The second is to create a flat approach to charging so that the same quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This is known as "Flat” charging.

If any change occurs between the two methods of charging, it is necessary for a new Cycle to start. This is because each Cycle involves charging a different quantity (or allocation) of Primary Block units in any month and the customers' billing system then has to be re-set to bill the correct amount of Primary Block units per month across all of its customers. A new Cycle therefore starts on the date of such change.'

RM5_2

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If any change occurs between the two methods of charging, it is necessary for a new Cycle to start.

As if these changes just 'occur' for reasons beyond their control.
Pitiful defence indeed. With this logic and their current seasonally adjusted (TM) weighting they could continuously overcharge by 2000 units per year simply by switching to flat each March and to seasonally adjusted each November.

RM5_2

DirectDebacle wrote: »

There are two approaches to this month by month Cycle.The first is to create a shaped approach to charging so that a differing quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This reflects higher customer usage of gas during the winter months and conversely, lower usage in the summer months and allows the supplier to recover a greater proportion of fixed costs during the periods of greater supply volume. This is known as Seasonally Weighted" charging. The second is to create a flat approach to charging so that the same quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This is known as "Flat” charging.

What's next? Probably:
There are twelve approaches to this month by month Cycle.The first is to allocate all primary block units to January...

DirectDebacle

DirectDebacle wrote: »

'Gas supplied is charged at two rates. The first or "Primary Block" rate is the more expensive and is charged per annum on the first 4,572 kWh("units") of gas consumed by means of an allocation of a specific quantity of Primary Block units in each month according to the method of allocation of those units, or billing "Cycle" applied.

This is the important part. The rest is waffle.

What they are saying here is that there are 4572 Primary Block units per annum. The billing "Cycle" is merely the way they divide up the Primary Block within the year. As long as they charge for no more than 4572 Primary block units per annum they can, as you say, charge all 4572 in January if they want. There would be no Primary Block left for them to charge over the remainder of the year.

So this is not a defence it just an explanation of how The Primary Block can be charged over a year or per annum. This is in the terms and conditions 'the first 4572kWh per year'. Here npower are agreeing with the customer that the contract allows for no more than 4572 per year.

When they say a new 'Cycle' starts and bills have to be re-set that is o.k too. Bills have to be re-set for a variety of reasons. Customers change tariffs, prices change etc.

At no point in that statement do npower say the 4572 has to be re-set.

Therein lies their difficulty. Despite what they say above they have failed to do what they state. They have confused re-setting the bills with re-setting the 4572 and starting a new Primary Block when they change the "Cycle".

They have convinced themselves that billing "Cycle" has come to mean year and have therefore done no wrong. Commonsense and simple mathematics should tell them differently but the stakes are high.

They only have two choices. That is to admit they were wrong and issue refunds or to show that they were correct. They are opting for the latter at the moment which I think will ultimately prove to be the more costly option for them.

c0113tt3

why are they using the term cycle? they have always referred to it as tariff year, I think that point will need to be made clear at court.

And that a tariff year and now they say cycle, is not always a year. ie. a tariff year or cycle is a max of 4572 . And on official documentation / price updates / notification of gas sculpt (nov07), contract and internet, they refer to neither, just per annum. And the comparitive switch sites of course base switching on 4572 per annum as per contract, which is misleading / fraud against customers, and uncompetative behaviour towards other companies, as it gives them an unfair advantage.

And of course that they suspended the sculpt end of April 07 till end of oct 07 to assist there own billing system migration, which they were aware more tier 1 (more over the 4572) would be paid, and that they claim lowered tier 2 to compensate, which hardly anyone used tier 2 over that period, hence they introduced the gas sculpt so everyone would have paid there tier 1s for that period, cos previously they were not. So based on that, how were you supposed to benefit from tier 2 over that period, where they already recognised people were not paying all their tier 1s? This resulted in very few people benefiting from lowering tier 2, and DID NOT compensate for suspending the sculpt and paying more tier 1's.


They are trying to squirm and confuse themselves out of using misleading terms (now using cycle instead of tariff year), but the fact remains they have mislead customers and over charged them per annum as per official documentation which refers to annum year only, not tariff year or cycle.

DirectDebacle

c0113tt3 wrote: »

why are they using the term cycle? they have always referred to it as tariff year...

They are trying to squirm and confuse themselves out of using misleading terms (now using cycle instead of tariff year), but the fact remains they have mislead customers and over charged them per annum as per official documentation which refers to annum year only, not tariff year or cycle.

It doesn't matter what they call it, Cycle Rate Applied to Primary units (CRAP) would do. It is how they define its' function that is the key.

Squirm and confuse. You hit the nail on the head. They have two main problems with this issue.

First the numbers. They are on everyones bills and cannot be changed. So no joy there.

Second as you point out, are the terms and conditions. Without any definition of a "year" or "per annum" to explain that those terms means anything other than the common plain English meaning, puts them in even more difficulty.

One way to to show a fixed quantity of something supplied over a fixed period of time is not exactly that is to use semantics. By the use of complex phrases and mostly meaningless language, they are attempting to make the logical appear illogical and the irrational appear rational.

Look back to January this year when this all came to light and the reasons/excuses they have come up with so far. All very similar but each slightly different. As each one is challenged and ridiculed another is brought out to take its place. Compare their letter to meggsy and the one they sent to me. Similar but different. The one to me was fairly precise (for npower) and the one meggsy received was less precise and allowed them more leeway. Their public statements in the media have undergone a similar transformation. Now we have "Cycle". No doubt this will be replaced eventually.

This current definition of "Cycle", though presented in an elaborate form is also very precise.
The first paragraph tells you that the Primary Block is charged on the first 4572kWh per annum. It then tells us that a "Cycle" is applied to the Primary Block. Therefore any "Cycle" or combination of "Cycles" applied to a Primary Block can only last for a year or per annum. When the Primary Block year or annum finishes then so does the "Cycle" applied to it. When the new Primary Block year starts then so does a new "Cycle". It doesn't matter whether the "Cycle" is the same as the previous one or not. The Primary Block is 4572kWh per annum so any "Cycle" applies to no more than this amount of units during the Primary block year to which it applies. That is how they have defined a "Cycle"

For npower to claim this means a Primary Block year ends just because a "Cycle" is changed is a direct contradiction of their own definition. In short their definition is 'new Primary Block year = new Cycle. Not the other way round.

The final paragraph where they deal with re-setting the billing system.

This is explained in terms designed to suggest that a new Primary Block has to start due to a change in the "Cycle". However this paragraph is also very clear in what it says. It says that if there is a change between "Cycles" then a new one has to start. Well that is obvious.

It then says that bills have to be re-set to bill the correct amount of Primary Block units per month. A new "Cycle" starts on the date of such change.
It does not state a new Primary Block starts on the date of such change.

So what they state is:

1. A Primary Block is 4572kWh per annum or year.

2. A"Cycle" is the method that the units are applied to each month over that Primary Block year.

3. If the "Cycle" changes during that year bills have to be re-set to take account of the change.

They are stating they can charge up to 4572kWh per annum and during that year or annum they apply different quantities of the 4572 to each month of the Primary Block year by means of the Cycle. As long as those quantities over the Primary Block year don't total more than 4572 I find that acceptable. There is nothing to say that a "Cycle" is anything other than an undefined period between the twelve months of a Primary Block year.

So far this is the best definition they have come up with. Apart from the flowery language I can't find much wrong with it. Just requires something like 'a new Primary Block starts on 1st April each year and ends on 31st March the following year' inserting to give it the finishing touch.

Then it would be game, set and match.

Anne3333

Want to know which female high-flyer has made it onto this year's Management Today 2008 '35 Women Under 35' List?

Eleanor Mack joined RWE NPower in June as corporate development and strategy manager. Before joining them she had worked at the Office of Fair Trading!!!

Think she has got her work cut out at Npower!

DirectDebacle

Anne3333 wrote: »

Want to know which female high-flyer has made it onto this year's Management Today 2008 '35 Women Under 35' List?

Eleanor Mack joined RWE NPower in June as corporate development and strategy manager. Before joining them she had worked at the Office of Fair Trading!!!

Think she has got her work cut out at Npower!

Bet they couldn't believe their luck when they recruited her. I can imagine a Drugs Cartel would be delighted to have a senior Customs and Excise investigator join their organisation.