Together Energy?

JuneS wrote: »

That's not true - the energy ombudsman even have a team that monitor compliance.


I'm not sure what page 33 you are referring to , but perhaps look at post#361 above



This article, which is over 12 months old, does not appear to support your allegation either.

With respect, read Martin Lewis’ report.

https://images6.moneysavingexpert.com/images/documents/MSE-Sharper_teeth_interactive.pdf?_ga=2.263129167.258021270.1544777178-1045363169.1507724648

Ombudsmen such as the Legal Ombudsman have powers that are defined by Statute (ie; law) ; that is, in effect The Ombudsman has the same legal standing as a Judge in a Court: Decisons are therefore fully enforceable by the Ombudsman.

The Energy Ombudsman’s powers are covered by an Underpinning Statute. In effect this means that for any Decisions to be enforced either The Energy Ombudsman or the Complainant has to take the supplier to Court. Ombudsman Services is on record as saying that it has never exercised its right to enforce a Decision through the Courts: they believe that a referral to the Regulator will ensure compliance.

Page 70 of the Report also states ‘the legislation does not specifically state that suppliers MUST comply with the redress scheme’s decisions; rather that Ofgem must ensure that the scheme’s own arrangements ensure its decisions can be enforced’.

Under The Ombudsman’s Remedy Implementation Policy, supplier’s are charged an additional fees for non compliance. Moreover, after 57 days, Ombudsman Services tells the consumer that they can open a new complaint to address the failed implementation of the original remedy, or they can pursue the energy company through the Court.

What Martin Lewis and others are arguing for is an Energy Ombudsman defined by Statute; that is, one that has Statutory legal powers to enforce its own Decisions. Monitoring compliance is not the same as enforcement and, has been reported in this forum, a number of suppliers have annotated the portal to show compliance - when little or nothing has been done - and The Energy Ombudsman has closed the complaint.

PS: If you do not believe me or the Report, then this is what was reported in the Press:

Quote:

Ombudsman schemes investigate and resolve complaints against a company or a public body when deadlock is reached, and their decisions are supposed to be binding. However, over the years, numerous readers have contacted the Observer claiming it has allowed firms to ignore its own rulings.

“Consumer feedback has been very poor,” says Martin Lewis, founder of the campaign website Moneysavingexpert which is presenting a review on ombudsman schemes in parliament this week. “One of the biggest problems is that remedies are not being implemented, mainly because most ombudsman services lack the powers to enforce them.”

The “ombudsman” title is a loose term covering three tiers of dispute resolution. Statutory schemes –such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Legal Ombudsman – have compulsory jurisdiction over certain regulated sectors, and decisions can be enforced by a court. Those, like the Energy Ombudsman, are underpinned by statute. Its compulsory for companies within that sector to be members of a scheme but it doesn’t actually give them any more legal powers. If a company ignores their remedies, all they can do is suggest the customer takes court action or, in serious breaches, report it to the relevant regulator.

UnQuote

Source: The Observer