Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Andrew
      Verified User verified user
    • By MSE Andrew Verified User verified user 12th Jun 18, 2:26 PM
    • 111Posts
    • 30Thanks
    MSE Andrew
    MSE News: MSE victory as Ofgem looks to compensate consumers for late switching bills
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 18, 2:26 PM
    MSE News: MSE victory as Ofgem looks to compensate consumers for late switching bills 12th Jun 18 at 2:26 PM
    Ofgem is looking at introducing automatic compensation for energy consumers who are hit by late final bills, in a major victory for MSE...
    Read the full story:
    'MSE victory as Ofgem looks to compensate consumers for late switching bills'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Page 1
  • archived user
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 18, 3:22 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jun 18, 3:22 PM
    Is this correct?

    To provide compensation when a switch is not completed with 21 calendar days from when someone applies to switch.

    The present SLC obligation is 35 days from the date that someone applies to switch. This includes the 14 day cooling off period. It follows that the 21 days applies from the end of the cooling off period NOT from when someone applies to switch. Not all suppliers are signed up to 17 day switching (cooling off period plus 3 days).

    Is Ofgem about to change the SLC or has this been misunderstood?

    Edit:

    The exact wording used by Ofgem is:

    To ensure a switch is completed within 21 calendar days from the date the consumer enters into contract with gaining supplier

    Ofgem does not use the word switch!
    Last edited by Hengus; 12-06-2018 at 3:28 PM.
    • matelodave
    • By matelodave 12th Jun 18, 3:26 PM
    • 4,467 Posts
    • 2,849 Thanks
    matelodave
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 18, 3:26 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 18, 3:26 PM
    And about time too - it shouldn't be all that difficult for energy companies to get their act together and they should get hit in the pocket where it hurts.

    Unfortunately it will just put up bills in the long term because they'll just recover the cost of their inefficiency from their customers.

    Perhaps the best way would be to fine the MD every time something went awry - that would concentrate their efforts to get it sorted
    Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers
    • D_M_E
    • By D_M_E 12th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    • 2,464 Posts
    • 71,884 Thanks
    D_M_E
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    One thing that's not covered is when the intermediary data collectors/verifiers get the consumer's energy usage wrong, resulting in vastly overinflated estimates and ginormous bills.
  • archived user
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 18, 5:19 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 18, 5:19 PM
    One thing that's not covered is when the intermediary data collectors/verifiers get the consumer's energy usage wrong, resulting in vastly overinflated estimates and ginormous bills.
    Originally posted by D_M_E
    The opening reading is verified by the Data Collectors within 10 to 14 days. The verified reading is then passed to the two suppliers to open and close accounts. If the customer/losing supplier can show that the verified reading is outwith the accepted tolerance limits, then an Agreed Readings Dispute (ARD) can be raised. If the losing supplier tries to hide behind an ARD, then this is easily checked with a call to the gaining supplier. I agree that if an ARD is initiated then it is unlikely that any compensation will be paid as suppliers often state that an ARD can take 8 to 12 weeks. ( Only the industry knows why a simple matter should take so long to resolve). In my view, the customer must also take some responsibility if he/she couldn’t be bothered to submit any meter readings during the contract term.
    • D_M_E
    • By D_M_E 12th Jun 18, 5:30 PM
    • 2,464 Posts
    • 71,884 Thanks
    D_M_E
    • #6
    • 12th Jun 18, 5:30 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jun 18, 5:30 PM
    Hengus - my comment was based on the fact that when I switched from Scottish Power they sent me a final bill which equated to 2 years' energy usage which was (nearly) corrected when I raised an ARD with the gaining supplier - the ARD took a month to sort before I paid the agreed, revised final bill.

    I also had bother when switching from EoN - the previous occupier used about 25KwH a day, whereas my consumption average around 3KwH per day and EoN did not believe the readings being submitted and again tried to bill me for over a year's consumption.

    I think the data verifiers should bear some responsibility in these situations and they need to update their verification proceedures and speed up the process or the Ombudsman's fiddling (sorry, directives/rules) would likely be pointless.
  • archived user
    • #7
    • 12th Jun 18, 7:14 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jun 18, 7:14 PM
    Hengus - my comment was based on the fact that when I switched from Scottish Power they sent me a final bill which equated to 2 years' energy usage which was (nearly) corrected when I raised an ARD with the gaining supplier - the ARD took a month to sort before I paid the agreed, revised final bill.

    I also had bother when switching from EoN - the previous occupier used about 25KwH a day, whereas my consumption average around 3KwH per day and EoN did not believe the readings being submitted and again tried to bill me for over a year's consumption.

    I think the data verifiers should bear some responsibility in these situations and they need to update their verification proceedures and speed up the process or the Ombudsman's fiddling (sorry, directives/rules) would likely be pointless.
    Originally posted by D_M_E
    Fair enough, but I doubt that full blown ARDs are that common. Usually, a telephone call between the two suppliers is all that is needed to correct an incorrect closing reading. If this measure stops some suppliers using ‘we haven’t received validated meter readings’ as an excuse for not issuing a Final Bill, then this is a good thing. But - will it? SLCs, at the moment, state that the supplier has to use reasonable efforts to raise a Final Bill within 6 weeks. ‘Reasonable efforts’ is a term that lawyers make £Ms arguing over. There is also the possibility that some suppliers might just issue a Final Bill of sorts to avoid breaching the 6 week compensation date.
    • D_M_E
    • By D_M_E 12th Jun 18, 7:39 PM
    • 2,464 Posts
    • 71,884 Thanks
    D_M_E
    • #8
    • 12th Jun 18, 7:39 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Jun 18, 7:39 PM
    There is also the possibility that the consumer pays any received "final bill" as a full and final settlement which, if the supplier accepts as such, prevents the supplier raising another, later, catchup "final" bill to correct the "previous final" bill, but I suspect that this would only apply if the customer sent payment by cheque which included the terms "full and final settlement" or some such, and it would be up to the customer to bill the supplier for their time dealing with any further correspondence.

    Beats me why it should take up to 6 weeks or more to finalise an account despite the verifiers being involved - too many fingers in the pie?

    Dare I mention the proliferation of smart meters - if the losing supplier has had a smart meter installed then they should have a good idea what the expected closing read(s) should be and should be able to raise a bill without having to involve the verifiers.
    Would make a change if the loser could supply their smart reading to the gainer - particularly if the gainer could also read the same smart meter, but we live in hope.

    Got to go..........................
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 13th Jun 18, 2:50 AM
    • 2,515 Posts
    • 3,962 Thanks
    badmemory
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 18, 2:50 AM
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 18, 2:50 AM
    Their excuse is that the original supplier loses access to the smart meter readings once the switch is done. Obviously meaning that in the microsecond between the old & the new supplier the customer then uses many multiple Kwhrs.with the old supplier. If smart meters were actually of any use then the intermediary would be without any point (translated = pointless), well that wouldn't do would it? Ie. may actually save customers money = never going to happen.
    • Sparx
    • By Sparx 13th Jun 18, 8:16 PM
    • 896 Posts
    • 498 Thanks
    Sparx
    Does anyone know if the 'late final bill' covers existing issues? I switched from Iresa to Bulb in February. I'm still waiting for the final bill from Iresa... And I can see on their online account they debited January's bill THREE times on my account... (muppets)
  • archived user
    Does anyone know if the 'late final bill' covers existing issues? I switched from Iresa to Bulb in February. I'm still waiting for the final bill from Iresa... And I can see on their online account they debited January's bill THREE times on my account... (muppets)
    Originally posted by Sparx
    The report above is about a consultation within the energy industry. Ofgem has to follow this process before it can make changes to Supply Licences. Changes to Supply Licences are not made retrospective; however, it were still waiting for your Final Bill when the changes are introduced then you would get compensation. You should follow Iresa's complaints procedure and then escalate the complaint to The Energy Ombudsman after 8 weeks or deadlock.

    PS: Iresa customers seem to get a response to problems if you can be bothered to post on Trustpilot.
    • Graham1
    • By Graham1 10th Jan 19, 10:20 AM
    • 442 Posts
    • 167 Thanks
    Graham1
    For anyone hoping this will help them now, be aware that it has not come into effect yet.

    https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2018/12/way_forward_on_supplier_guaranteed_standards_or_sw itching_and_si_consultation_on_a_statutory_instrum ent_to_bring_them_into_force.pdf

    Appendix 3, table A1, says "for implementation in Q1 2019"

    My understanding is that suppliers will then have 2 months to comply with the new rules.

    If I am mistaken in any of this please update with what you know.
    Last edited by Graham1; 10-01-2019 at 10:24 AM.
    • merchcon55
    • By merchcon55 10th Jan 19, 7:03 PM
    • 113 Posts
    • 100 Thanks
    merchcon55

    Unfortunately it will just put up bills in the long term because they'll just recover the cost of their inefficiency from their customers.
    Originally posted by matelodave

    We've seen this time and time again - so absurd to think this is a "win". Zero sum game i'm afraid.
    • londonice
    • By londonice 26th Mar 19, 3:28 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    londonice
    Hi,
    Does anyone know if this has now come into effect for all suppliers please?


    Might be useful if I don't hear from my old supplier as I've got a credit balance and the final bill hasn't been done yet (two weeks to go).


    Thanks.
    Managing well since 2012
    • Paenymion
    • By Paenymion 26th Mar 19, 3:55 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Paenymion
    Comes into force 1st May 2019

    I'm not allowed to post links yet, but it's from the OFGEM site.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

146Posts Today

1,563Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Mini MSE is on half term next week, so I'm excited to be taking the week off to be daddy. As normal I'm signing of? https://t.co/G3366shWh1

  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Follow Martin