Add your feedback on energy supplier Iresa
Comments
-
I received a determination from the Ombudsman in the past few weeks on these precise issues.youravinalarrrf wrote: »I'm still waiting for a proposed resolution from the Ombudsman in the case I raised re my complaint about the incorrect calculation of Calorific Value and the complaint being totally ignored by Iresa.
They agreed that IRESA had used a calorific value of 40.0 in their calculations (although IRESA had told me they hadn't) and that IRESA had failed to communicate properly.
However the Ombudsman said they weren't able to check whether the calorific value was 39.5 for the billing period I had given them a copy of the bill for, so they were just going to assume that IRESA were right to use 40.0, and I was wrong
The Ombudsman had enough info to realise that the calorific value was less than 40.0, they could have gone on the National Grid website and spotted that the daily calorific values were below 40.0 for every single day of the period.
Needless to say I have not accepted the determination I came, I saw, I melted0 -
How can they be any quicker.
All you are doing is going via a third party who will then advise the supplier of the complaint using the same suppliers complaint procedure.
:huh:
OK-for 'quicker' read 'easier'. No point in wasting a stamp and a recorded delivery fee on Iresa-I'd imagine that opening their post comes fairly low down on the priority list.
Resolver also provides a convenient audit trail and point of reference when the time comes to escalate the complaint to the EO.No free lunch, and no free laptop
0 -
I received a determination from the Ombudsman in the past few weeks on these precise issues.
They agreed that IRESA had used a calorific value of 40.0 in their calculations (although IRESA had told me they hadn't) and that IRESA had failed to communicate properly.
However the Ombudsman said they weren't able to check whether the calorific value was 39.5 for the billing period I had given them a copy of the bill for, so they were just going to assume that IRESA were right to use 40.0, and I was wrong
The Ombudsman had enough info to realise that the calorific value was less than 40.0, they could have gone on the National Grid website and spotted that the daily calorific values were below 40.0 for every single day of the period.
Needless to say I have not accepted the determination
Send a copy of the incorrect statement to consumeraffairs@ofgem.gov.uk pointing out that you believe that Iresa is not complying with the regulation dated August 2014.0 -
I have been reading the posts regarding calorific value and as I am not all that great with numbers, I want to be sure I am not misplacing a decimal point.
I have an imperial meter - I know that when the meter advances 1 full digit, this represents 31.75 Kw calculated as follows:
(2.83 x 39.5 x 1.02264)/3.6
I was not even aware that the 39.5 in that calculation is the Calorific Value.
So if my meter advances 3 full digits, this would be 95.25 kw. Based on my last winter gas rate of 2.079p/kw, this would cost me £1.98
If I use 40 instead of 39.5, I would get 96.45 Kw, costing £2.01
Let's say for this example, my meter advances 3 units per day in winter, say over 6 months (180 days). Using 39.5, this gives me 17,145 KW used
Using 40, this gives me 17,361 KW used, or 216kW more x 2.079p = £4.49 Overcharge if using 40 Calorific Value vs 39.5 Calorific Value
Are my calculations correct???
I understand that if they do this to 10,000 customers, that is £44,900 extra profit.
While I do understand there are licensing rules + requirements, could it be that OFGEM and the EO simply do not care about an under £5 over-charge per customer??
Thanks for clarification.0 -
merchcon55 wrote: »I have been reading the posts regarding calorific value and as I am not all that great with numbers, I want to be sure I am not misplacing a decimal point.
I have an imperial meter - I know that when the meter advances 1 full digit, this represents 31.75 Kw calculated as follows:
(2.83 x 39.5 x 1.02264)/3.6
I was not even aware that the 39.5 in that calculation is the Calorific Value.
So if my meter advances 3 full digits, this would be 95.25 kw. Based on my last winter gas rate of 2.079p/kw, this would cost me £1.98
If I use 40 instead of 39.5, I would get 96.45 Kw, costing £2.01
Let's say for this example, my meter advances 3 units per day in winter, say over 6 months (180 days). Using 39.5, this gives me 17,145 KW used
Using 40, this gives me 17,361 KW used, or 216kW more x 2.079p = £4.49 Overcharge if using 40 Calorific Value vs 39.5 Calorific Value
Are my calculations correct???
I understand that if they do this to 10,000 customers, that is £44,900 extra profit.
While I do understand there are licensing rules + requirements, could it be that OFGEM and the EO simply do not care about an under £5 over-charge per customer??
Thanks for clarification.
This might help you check your calculations:
https://www.businessenergy.com/gas/kwh-calculator.html
The daily calorific value varies. In May, my average CV was 39.8. In July, the average CV had fallen to 39.3. These are the values that must be used for billing purposes. The problem with Iresa bills was (I am no longer with Iresa) that the actual CV used was never stated on the bill. It required a reverse calculation using the stated metered units and billed kWhs to see what CV had been used. Often the calculation would come out to an infinite number of decimal points. Ofgem rules state that a truncated value to one decimal point has to be used(ie; 39.49999 = 39.4).
If the CV problem still persists, then Ofgem will only care if enough people complain and send in copies of their erroneous bills. FWIW, the EO did uphold my complaint that Iresa had used an incorrect CV for billing purposes, and I was awarded compensation for time and trouble.
The statement from my new gas supplier came in today. No fancy (confusing) multipliers, just a simple calculation on the statement showing:
KWhs = Metered Units * Calorific Value * 1.02264/3.6
Looking back over old bills, EDF, Ovo and E.oN’s statements all showed exactly the same calculation.0 -
Ah, that'll be down to Iresa's much-vaunted 'unique technology' then...No free lunch, and no free laptop0
-
Are Iresa in difficulties? They aren't taking on new customers according to their website http://www.iresa.co.uk/not-taking-new-orders/
I have been a dual fuel customer for about nine months just paying a fixed direct debit but never received any bills or any acknowledgement of my meter readings & nobody has come to read the meters. I have been renting property & am moving out soon so contacted them via the website ten days ago then by email a week ago but had no response. I just tried calling the number on their website to be greeted with a voicemail message Voipzone customer's mailbox cannot accept any more messages.
I'll be out of the property in a few weeks so I'll just cancel the direct debit. I think that I probably owe them money as my consumption has been higher than their estimate so at least I won't be out of pocket if they have gone belly up.
I managed ti get through by phone after ten minutes on hold & confirmed my leaving date. I think that I'll follow this up with a letter sent with a certificate of posting in case there is any dispute at a later date.0 -
-
This might help you check your calculations:
https://www.businessenergy.com/gas/kwh-calculator.html
If the CV problem still persists, then Ofgem will only care if enough people complain and send in copies of their erroneous bills.
FWIW, the EO did uphold my complaint that Iresa had used an incorrect CV for billing purposes, and I was awarded compensation for time and trouble.
Thanks for the calculator link - which showed that my calculations were indeed correct.
The truth of the matter is most people could not be bothered to contact OFGEM and EO for a minor billing problem.
I'm not saying it's right - and congrats on getting some compensation.
But the majority of people won't even know that there is this SLIGHT calculation error - and even if they do know, and take the time to figure out it is only a few quid out - they simply won't bother.
Technically, I agree, IRESA are in breach of the licensing agreement - but seriously doubt OFGEM is going to do anything about it.
Again - thanks for the link.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards