Smart Meters

Maybe it is time that a gas meter's were simplified to actually be what you are charged for. Instead of which we have what to many is a complicated calculation which just means they quite understandably ignore it. After all 3 of the conversion amounts are constants. It is only the calorific value that varies and over the last ten years of my monthly readings that calorific value has varied by only 0.75%. And as one month its up & the next down it is really pretty much irrelevant. It really should be a case of read meter take off last meter reading multiply by unit cost add 5% VAT & there's your bill.

At the very least a bill should say that the approx cost of a unit that you are being charged is ***.

The advantage of course to suppliers is that it is well known that if you make bills too complicated people don't actually read them and just cough up. This is how some people don't realise whether they are on cubic feet or cubic meters for a very long time.

ETA In the last 53000 kwh there has been a less than 0.01% difference. That is a 1p in every £100 & they can cause this difference in the rounding to add VAT. It is the PAYG meters that seem to be getting the worse deal - not just in the prices they are having to pay but in the calorific value they are being charged which is almost 2% more than the rest of us pay for.

Nick_C wrote: »

You are saying that only one person in a million is interested in seriously monitoring their energy usage and using energy in the most efficient way.

Nonsense.

Hi

Agree, to be correct then there'd be around 60 people in the entire country interested in energy efficiency & monitoring energy usage ... there's likely more than that who post on the subject just on the G&E board of this site ...

Anyway, I'd be more interested on how my energy supplier intends to ensure that "... smart meters will get the correct answer..correct 100% of the time and banish the hated word "estimate " from a bill forever." ... if that's the official claim then they'd better be able to deliver the service as described if they want to charge even a penny for the technology, in any payment form. As it is, just like happens in millions of other households, we manage our energy account on-line - even if an estimated bill arrives it's corrected well within one billing cycle & spending a few minutes every year updating a system is absolutely no problem ... now, if I'm required to pay for (/towards) a system with a 100% guarantee of neither errors nor estimates forever to improve customer experience & reduce inconvenience, then there'd better be no knocks on the door from a meter reader and still achieve 100% accurate billing in our communications 'grey-spot' home else I'd certainly be expecting both a billing discount & the ability to charge for services rendered .. ie - submitting meter readings .. about £100/year should just about cover the inconvenience! :cool:;)

HTH
Z

House_Martin wrote: »

You are not allowed to refuse a "safety inspection " from a meter reader.This may happen around once every 2 years. It is standard procedure set out by OFGEM and every supplier is supposed to adhere to this
You have agreed to this in the terms and conditions of supply
. If you keep refusing access to meter readers to monitor their safety then we may take out a warrant of access, and a locksmith if necessary to view our meters. They do not belong to you , nor does the energy which is piped or supplied to you .
Suppliers are doing this every day of the week. Magistrates spend every Monday signing off warrants.
You will be charged for both the warrant and the locksmith if it is needed, about £250
Best of luck in your efforts of billing the supplier !

Hi

Absolute nonsense - you stated that there would be 100% accuracy, no estimated bills & no need for meter reading in exchange for having a smart-meter (and by implication paying £500 for the privilege) ... my post effectively says by example that this is not the case for everyone because of communications issues, therefore the 100% you mention cannot be achieved, let alone guaranteed ...

Effectively, if people request &/or are expected to pay for/towards a service, then that service should be delivered as per the contract, however much it may cost the supplier, else it would be incumbent on the supplier to either offer a compensatory discount, or offer an alternative arrangement ... I'll happily continue to provide meter readings on-line and/or arrange by appointment to be inconvenienced and not pay for/towards a smart-meter which cannot possibly provide advantage to either our household or the energy supply industry because of communication issues.

You seem to get really stuck around the issue of access refusal despite the denial of access not being raised ... the simple fact is that charging for infrastructure which negates the need to inconvenience the consumer, but which will not work in 100% of locations/properties and then expecting consumers to still be inconvenienced by either continuing to submit readings on line ... and/or still receive estimated bills ... and/or still have regular meter reading visits in my opinion is a little rich for anyone to accept in any standard terms & conditions of supply without someone challenging those terms&conditions and charges as forming an unfair contract, that is paying for/towards a service which is available, charged for, but not delivered.

I consider your position on access for periodic safety checking to be simple distraction from the point at hand - a service is being offered & charged for which cannot in 100% of cases be delivered, moreover, the industry and those connected to the industry know this - as does anyone who have ever been associated with automated data acquisition technologies, particularly using mobile communications ... beyond that, the requirements of the EU directive have been misinterpreted and/or misrepresented so that the project can be milked as a cash-cow, not only in the initial bow wave of installations, but every time that the replacement cycle repeats ... it's not only £500/household for Phase I, it's very nearly the same amount repeated every 10-15 years-or-so as the units need replacement, so we might as well say £1/week added to the energy bills for every household - for ever!

So, what does that £1/week do for most consumers? - absolutely nothing, nowt, nought, zip ... and for the supplier, well that's a decent immediate uplift in revenue/margin of around £25million/week, plus the ability to cut costs by 'releasing' the majority of their meter readers & sub-contractors, but most of all there's the really big industry plus which is so often overlooked:- it provides the tool to both remove overall tariff planning/transparency through using price comparison websites with any degree of accuracy & the ability to introduce a completely opaque 'peak' time TOU 'big stick' offered by HHM ... all of which are definitely not in the interest of the consumer, just the industry & it's shareholders.

I do not intend to have a smart-meter installed whilst I have a choice & this ridiculous roll-out project allows the industry to milk the consumer when the consumer already pays for infrastructure maintenance within the existing billing structure and has always done so ... my meter is old, my meter will need replacement - the way I see it is that our household is well in credit on the replacement unit funding account, so where has this money gone, or where will it go? ... if the meter was replaced within it's natural replacement cycle there's be no special project & no special project cost, therefore no £15billion or £500/household or £1/household/week, yet the meters would still be fitted & there'd be less fuss about waste & greed.

HTH
Z