NPower gas 'sculpting'

DirectDebacle

Anne3333 wrote: »

Nominate POST OF THE YEAR for 2008
I have nominated DirectDebacle for all his efforts, support and sheer tenacity over this issue, if you agree please log a vote
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1326127&page=2
Post #38
Thanks

Errr dunno what to say. I feel very flattered. I think it is the first time in my life I have been nominated for anything (good).

My contribution was one of many and if there were a category for Thread of the Year 2008 then I think this would be a strong contender for winning. It would certainly receive my vote.

(N)power to the people.

DirectDebacle

DirectDebacle wrote: »

"Why have you been cheating your customers since 1st April, 2003 ?", would be good start.

A. 'We couldn't do it any earlier because we didn't start sculpting before then'

Q.Anne3333 "Do you intend to repay all your customers, or are you intending to wait until OFGEM force you?"

A. 'We compensated customers before we didn't overcharge them much and Ofgem cannot enforce us to do what we already might have done'

Q. Anne3333"What is your understanding of the term YEAR?"

A. 'The same as everyone elses. It is an indefinite period of time between two random dates as defined by The Quark Concept of Warped Time and Space. This has been shortened in our Terms and Conditions to 'year' for clarity. We purchased the Crystal Mark from the Campaign for Plain English which shows how clear we are.

Q. reactor 'Do you like prison food?

A. 'I understand it has improved immensely since I was last there.'

DirectDebacle

I have nominated colonellhall for the Post of the Year 2008. He was the first to bring this to the attention of the site and started the ball rolling.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=16918319&posted=1#post16918319

O.K. so voting for him will 'boost' my 'thankings' but it is a price I am prepared to pay in order that colonellhall and all the other posters have a chance of receiving some recognition for their hard work. In my view this was a lot harder to fathom than Bank Charges and every bit as important. Even now people are still discovering they were victims of this practice.

VOTE FOR THE COLONEL.

Anne3333

Npower is to be fined £1.8 million after it failed to take sufficient action to prevent mis-selling of contracts to customers.Its recent probe into the energy supply market found that rules governing suppliers' sales and marketing activities needed to be strengthened to help customers make well-informed decisions in response to direct sales. The regulator OFGEM said the penalty "could have been much higher", but reflected the nature of the licence breach and the prompt action taken by Npower.
Can we assume from this, that the penalty will be very much higher for this Sculpting issue due to the total lack of action taken???

DirectDebacle

Can we assume from this, that the penalty will be very much higher for this Sculpting issue due to the total lack of action taken???

No.

But it should be.

shoopshoop

Hello,

I have just joined after reading thru pages & pages of posts on this topic. I complained to npower last summer and ended up in a deadlock (no joy through energywatch or ombudsman). Basically I had been charged more than 4572kwh at higher rate during a 12 month period.

After reading earlier posts I downloaded the spreadsheet and have typed in all my figures from bills Dec 2005 - Dec 2008. And this seems to show that although I may have charged more than 4572kwh at the higher rate in a 12 month period, the bill amount isn't actually out by that much -compared to what the spreadsheet says I should be paying (max £8.44 and that was in my favour). Overall Dec 05-Dec 08 I'm up 7p!!

The bills I was down were Dec 05, Nov 06 and Mar 07.

Sep 05 - Sep 06 - 4476 kwh at higher rate
Sep 06 - Aug 07 5183 kwh at higher rate
Aug 07 - Jul 07 5065 kwh at higher rate

Am I right in thinking I one of a lucky few who hasn't overpaid? Or am I misunderstanding what the spreadsheet is for?

Thanks

Cardew

Direct Debacle is the expert here, but you need to take any 12 month period not just from Sep.

shoopshoop

Thanks Cardew,

I think I get what you mean - i.e. any 12 consecutive months.

I was just puzzled that the spreadsheets seem to suggest my bills were mostly close to the mark price-wise.

Here are some details from the spreadsheets (discrepancies):

20/9/05 - 17/12/05 actual bill says 1188 high / 5714 low -> £127.55 total
20/9/05 - 17/12/05 spreadsheet says 927 high / 5975 low -> £123.64 total

17/12/05-1/1/06 actual bill says 280 high / 1603 low
17/12/05-1/1/06 spreadsheet says 233 high / 1644 low

1/1/06-11/1/06 actual bill says 202 high / 1193 low
1/1/06-11/1/06 spreadsheet says 834 high / 557 low

11/1/06-17/3/06 actual bill says 1339 high / 5677 low
11/1/06-17/3/06 spreadsheet says 1335 high / 5689 low

3 sets immediately above were all in one bill of £213.74, whereas spreadsheet suggested £222.18.

1/10/06-29/11/06 actual bill says 780 high / 3948 low -> £158.46
1/10/06-29/11/06 spreadsheet says 585 high / 4141 low -> 154.62

29/11/06-15/1/07 actual bill 897 high / 2661 low
29/11/06-15/1/07 spreadsheet says 787 high / 2762 low

15/1/07-2/3/07 actual bill 983 high / 3868 low
15/1/07-2/3/07 spreadsheet says 983 high / 3876 low

2 sets immediately above both in one bill of £248.65 whereas spreadsheet suggested £246.50.

19/8/08-28/8/08 actual bill 13 high / 473 low
19/8/08-28/8/08 spreadsheet says 59 high / 427 low
cost discrepancy for this one £1.34 in my favour.

It occurred to me that I could be using the wrong % in some instances. The spreadsheet had a table of %s "from Nov 2008" which I assumed should be "from Nov 2007" and I assume that it's valid to use the table "prior to May 2007" for 2005 & 2006. I used the flat rate for May-Oct 2007 OK.

Another thing I noticed in some bills (those in italics above) that the total kwh calculation was slightly out (by up to 9 kwh) I assume this is something to do with the calorific value?

Overall I'm happy if what the spreadsheet is telling me is true, but I just want to make sure I've done it right first.

Thanks for your help.

Cardew

I have not used the spreadsheet but the main problem area is the period from 30 April 2007 to 31 Oct 2007.

During this 6 month period had they followed their 'Sculpting' pattern you would have only been charged minimal tier 1 units.

Instead they suspended 'Sculpting' and charged a flat rate of 381kWh per month.

So you need to take a 12 month period that includes the April-Oct 2007 period and see how many Tier1 units you were charged for. For most people it will be 2,000 or so extra, and I can't see you being less.

shoopshoop

Hello Cardew,

I think I was getting hooked up on the spreadsheet when that isn't the issue.

When I tot up the higher rates units I was charged for between 30 April 2007 and 18 March 2008 it was 5966 - so that's 1394 extra.

It's even worse if I tot up 15/1/07-4/1/08 - it's 6111 which is 1539 over.

That is what I will concentrate on now!

Thanks