npower gas sculpting
Roland Perry
bills, and no, Energywatch and Ofgem do not appear to be showing any
signs of helping (helping the 'many people' - my complaint is in its
early days).
As it happens, I noticed the problem independently (on my Final bill on
leaving npower, dated 12th March), and have now got to the point of
npower telling me (on Friday) "your bill is correct, this is our final
word" - in this land of smoke and mirrors, it's not clear if this
qualifies as "deadlock".
I will describe the reason for the billing problem below (there is no
dispute about meter readings, it's the interpretation of the tariff),
but my first question is this: I have an outstanding £300 bill and
npower have sent two "10 day" letters, despite claiming to have frozen
the account a month ago when I first notified the dispute. We are about
on day 15, and on Friday they made no mention of what was happening
regarding the collection process, but they *are* aware of my complaint
to Energywatch, and have a case number. The npower lady I talked to was
also very rude.
One strategy would be to pay the amount and then sue for a refund (my
claim involves a whole year of payments). This would avoid the threats
they are making of "sending a Debt Collection Agency to call at your
property" and "sharing this information with Credit Reference Agencies".
I know this seems like giving in to bullying, but I'm more concerned
about winning the moral argument in the long run (by using the correct
procedures) rather than merely stalling over a relatively small sum that
I can easily afford to pay.
My claim will be for about £85, but if this is a systematic problem,
which it shows every sign of, there may be millions of customers with
the same issue, and as far as I can see they will mostly have similar
amounts to claim (although arguing over the last few pounds in
individual cases muddies the waters, so is best avoided).
The Problem:
It arises from npower scrapping Standing Charges and replacing them with
a two-tier system that they call "Primary" and "Secondary", with a
tariff that claims to charge "the first 4572 units each year at the
primary rate". The two rates are (in my area, to 2 significant figures)
currently 6.7p and 2.0p; so the "virtual standing charge" is 4572*4.7p
or £214 a year.
Other suppliers use a similar system, but unlike npower simply spread
the 'virtual standing charge' of higher priced units equally across the
year, resulting in predictable and verifiable bills.
npower, however, use a scheme they call "sculpting" which apportions it
differently throughout the year, in particular making the 'virtual
standing charge' higher in the winter than the summer. There is some
debate about whether this is right or wrong, and whether it causes
anomalies if you join or leave npower part-way through a year [more
later on what "a year" is], but I don't want to get distracted by that.
My first complaint is that the way the bill is sculpted is not
sufficiently transparent, and it's difficult to find an explanation.
npower, in turn, seem to think that explanations will only confuse the
customer!
Back in 2006 they had a "curve" that varied between 2.4% and 13.8% (of
4572) for each month. As illustration the values for February and March
are 13.6% and 12.2%. Taking any 12-month period, the total would always
be 100% (= 4572), if nothing else changed.
In April 2007 they changed their mind about the shape of the sculpting
profile (claiming amongst other things that they were merging several
billing systems together), and also changed their prices (I'm not
complaining about the prices, as such).
npower say (although consumers seem unaware of it unless they enquire)
that when prices change it also triggers a "new accounting year" for the
purposes of sculpting. That doesn't mean the rate for the *immediately
following* 12 months exceeds 100%, but there are significant edge
effects. The figure they changed to sculpting to in April 07 was a flat
8.3% per month.
And then in Jan 08 they changed their prices *again* (causing me to
leave), and started another new "sculpting accounting year", with a
completely different, and in fact much lumpier profile (basically 20%
for a period of five winter months, and 0% in the summer).
The result for the calendar year March 07-Feb 08 (which I've picked for
no better reason than it's my last four bills) is as follows:
March 07 12.2%
April 8.3% *New sculpting "year".
May 8.3%
Jun 8.3
July 8.3%
Aug 8.3%
Sep 8.3%
Oct 8.3%
Nov 19.3% *New sculpting "year".
Dec 07 19.3%
Jan 08 19.3%
Feb 08 19.3%
Which adds up to 147% !!! (ie 47% too much gas was charged at the
Primary rate during those 12 months).
My claim is basically that I want the 47% back, because they advertise
that they will charge "4572 units each year" at that higher rate, and
four bills makes a year, Jan-Dec makes a year (there would be a 36%
refund due if we calculated Jan07-Dec08 instead), but npower are hiding
behind the claim that the period in question are fragments of three
"sculpting years" end to end, each of which in isolation would, after a
year, add up to 100%, and it's just hard luck that combined they add up
to more.
What doe the team think?
[A different way to view the problem is to imagine the following
hypothetical scenario, which would apparently be OK according to npower:
In the spring they could say "We have a new scheme and will apply the
(virtual) standing charge entirely to the summer months, so that's £200
in six monthly instalments between now and the Autumn please, you can
look forward to it being free in the Winter". And then in the Autumn
saying "Thanks for the £214, but we've changed our mind and in future
we'll charge only during the Winter and it'll be free in the Summer.
Another £214 please.]
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
<snip saga of changing tariffs affecting bills>
Electricity companies change their tariffs from time to time.
If, on receipt of details of the new tariff, a consumer takes prompt
action to change supplier- the old supplier must keep them on the
existing tariff until the changeover takes effect.
Obviously the consumer must promptly notify the old supplier of his
change of supplier.
Consumers that do not promptly change suppliers are accepting the new
terms and conditions set by their existing supplier.
You either didn't take action to change suppliers early enough or didn't
advise the old supplier that you wanted to stay on the old tariff until
the change took effect. Or both.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
><snip saga of changing tariffs affecting bills>
Please read again, I specifically said it *wasn't* about tariffs.
>Electricity companies change their tariffs from time to time.
>
>If, on receipt of details of the new tariff, a consumer takes prompt
>action to change supplier- the old supplier must keep them on the
>existing tariff until the changeover takes effect.
I believe that I may have saved a little money during the changeover
period as a result of the price rise - but it seems you have to claim
that at the same time as "resigning". However, I'm not worried about
that.
>Obviously the consumer must promptly notify the old supplier of his
>change of supplier.
>
>Consumers that do not promptly change suppliers are accepting the new
>terms and conditions set by their existing supplier.
The only thing that changed was a completely undocumented alteration to
their "sculpting" (NB no chance to complain or switch, as we weren't
told) *plus* the fact that the change to the sculpting has resulted in
me being charged the *wrong number of units* at each of the two tiers.
They didn't even change the annual number of units-per-tier. Nor am I
complaining about either the total amount of gas used, nor the tariff
for each tier - but the number of units assigned to each tier.
>You either didn't take action to change suppliers early enough or
>didn't advise the old supplier that you wanted to stay on the old
>tariff until the change took effect. Or both.
None of those.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <PxEOj.254472$uN4.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>, at 11:05:13
> on Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>> <snip saga of changing tariffs affecting bills>
>
> Please read again, I specifically said it *wasn't* about tariffs.
I have read it again. I still can't understand your problem.
They changed their tariff (including the way they applied the tariff) in
January. If you had made arrangements to change suppliers at that time,
and notified them of that, then the new tariff and new way of applying
the tariff, would not have been applied to your account. You would have
continue on the old tariff and old method of applying the tariff, until
your new supplier contract commenced.
If you didn't take the necessary steps to change then and notify them,
then you accepted the terms and conditions - including the tariff and
the way it was applied.
Applying to change suppliers after that window would not have prevented
them applying the new t&c.
>
>> Electricity companies change their tariffs from time to time.
>>
>> If, on receipt of details of the new tariff, a consumer takes prompt
>> action to change supplier- the old supplier must keep them on the
>> existing tariff until the changeover takes effect.
>
> I believe that I may have saved a little money during the changeover
> period as a result of the price rise - but it seems you have to claim
> that at the same time as "resigning". However, I'm not worried about that.
Yep, you have to notify them that you do not agree to the new tariff and
the way it is applied and have placed a contract with another supplier.
They will then keep you on the old tariff and the way it is applied
until the new contract commences.
>
>> Obviously the consumer must promptly notify the old supplier of his
>> change of supplier.
>>
>> Consumers that do not promptly change suppliers are accepting the new
>> terms and conditions set by their existing supplier.
>
> The only thing that changed was a completely undocumented alteration to
> their "sculpting" (NB no chance to complain or switch, as we weren't
> told) *plus* the fact that the change to the sculpting has resulted in
> me being charged the *wrong number of units* at each of the two tiers.
Such information was available from them. By not rejecting the Jan
change, you accepted the change.
>
> They didn't even change the annual number of units-per-tier. Nor am I
> complaining about either the total amount of gas used, nor the tariff
> for each tier - but the number of units assigned to each tier.
>
>> You either didn't take action to change suppliers early enough or
>> didn't advise the old supplier that you wanted to stay on the old
>> tariff until the change took effect. Or both.
>
> None of those.
OK, so you did take action before the change in January took place by
placing a contract with a different supplier. You did notify the old
supplier that you were changing supplier and wished to remain on the old
tariff and method of calculation until the change of supplier took
effect. If they still made those changes, complain to the regulator.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>> <snip saga of changing tariffs affecting bills>
>> Please read again, I specifically said it *wasn't* about tariffs.
>
>I have read it again. I still can't understand your problem.
I'm glad, in a way, that you are having a problem - because it shows I
haven't expressed the problem clearly enough :(
>They changed their tariff (including the way they applied the tariff)
>in January.
No, they changed it [the sculpting profile] (without telling anyone) in
April 07. And then again on 1st November 2007.
{this throws up a new inconsistency in their story, because
they've told most people that the "sculpting year" is reset at a
tariff change, ie 5th Jan 08, whereas they told me, and my bill
is consistent with, a change on 1st Nov 07. I hadn't noticed
that before, and is very useful, thanks!}
The letters informing customers of the change in price-per-unit make no
mention of the change in sculpting profile.
The T&C say that the tariff is on the bill, and the bill mentions
nothing about sculpting; however the notices of changes of price *do*
include a passing reference to sculpting without describing the shape,
or any changes to the shape (either what change or when). The notices of
change of price are the only things sent to customers that mention the
4572 per year quota (although it is also prominent on their website,
places like uswitch etc).
>If you had made arrangements to change suppliers at that time, and
>notified them of that, then the new tariff and new way of applying the
>tariff, would not have been applied to your account.
I'm not complaining about the new tariff itself (the 6.7p and 1.20p) at
all. (Except that to save about 15%, I did move to British Gas).
It was when I got the final bill that the problems started.
I noticed that for the 42 days between 5th Jan (the price change) and
15th Feb (when my supply was switched) I'd been charged a whopping 1225
units at the higher rate. That's more than a whole quarter's quota, if
there had been no sculpting.
So I looked at the 22 days between December 13th (start of the bill) and
4th Jan (the price change). Here was another 626 units charged at the
higher rate. A total of over 40% of a year's quota, on one bill!
So I added up all the bills back to 28th Feb 07, and it came to 6409
units at the higher rate (versus a promise of 4572).
I looked further back and it seemed OK in 2006 and earlier.
So I started the complaint, and one letter and two conversations with
npower later - here we are.
>You would have continue on the old tariff and old method of applying
>the tariff, until your new supplier contract commenced.
>
>If you didn't take the necessary steps to change then and notify them,
>then you accepted the terms and conditions - including the tariff and
>the way it was applied.
>
>Applying to change suppliers after that window would not have prevented
>them applying the new t&c.
None of that is relevant (although as a second order effect it might be
interesting to discover if a "frozen charges" account during the time
it's being swapped to a new supplier keeps the 'old' sculpting rates -
eg if frozen in late December would the user get charged at the higher
rate on the first 8.3% of 4572 (=380) units, or the first 19.3% of 4572
(=880) units.
At that stage a month at the wrong sculpting shape would cost the user
(880-380)*4.7p (=£23.50) extra.
>> The only thing that changed was a completely undocumented alteration
>>to their "sculpting" (NB no chance to complain or switch, as we
>>weren't told) *plus* the fact that the change to the sculpting has
>>resulted in me being charged the *wrong number of units* at each of
>>the two tiers.
>
>Such information was available from them.
They didn't tell people about the first change of sculpting shape (in
April 07), and even now it's virtually impossible to get the information
out of them. You have to get escalated to the special "sculpting team"
(yes they have so many complaints about this it seems they have a
special team dealing with them) and if you argue long enough they'll
give you the numbers.
And all along, the one figure has never changed. They always have, and
still do, say that they'll charge 4572 units a year at the higher rate.
But I have a four bills in front of me, covering 50 weeks, during which
they've charged me 6409 units at the higher rate.
And that's not because of a change of tariff, but because of the way
they've changed the sculpting shape to grab more cash from customers
during last summer, compared to a normal summer's shape (when most of
the gas would be at the cheaper tier).
>By not rejecting the Jan change, you accepted the change.
I hope by now you can see it's not about a tariff change in Jan 08, but
about a change of sculpting shape. (See my original table for a month by
month explanation).
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
That is a tariff change. They may be saying that it isn't - but changing
the way that they allocate different price units is a tariff change.
Write to the regulator. Write to Watchdog. Even phone them.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> I hope by now you can see it's not about a tariff change in Jan 08,
>>but about a change of sculpting shape. (See my original table for a
>>month by month explanation).
>
>That is a tariff change. They may be saying that it isn't - but
>changing the way that they allocate different price units is a tariff
>change.
I still think you haven't grasped the problem.
It's not a normal "change" for a couple reasons:
They didn't change the headline figure of 4572 units (even
though they then billed people for 6000+)
They didn't tell anyone that anything had changed.
And, as I've now noticed, they didn't even change the billing formula on
the same day they changed the "rates per KW" (ie the change of tariff
they did tell us about).
The thing it most looks like, is a billing mistake, because they are
supposed to cap your annual usage (at the higher rate) at one number,
and are in fact capping it a a higher number.
>Write to the regulator.
I have already contacted them.
And I'd be interested to hear from other npower gas customers, because I
think you've all been caught by this.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <LFWOj.374562$ic2.3...@fe09.news.easynews.com>, at 07:45:41
> on Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>> I hope by now you can see it's not about a tariff change in Jan 08,
>>> but about a change of sculpting shape. (See my original table for a
>>> month by month explanation).
>> That is a tariff change. They may be saying that it isn't - but
>> changing the way that they allocate different price units is a tariff
>> change.
>
> I still think you haven't grasped the problem.
>
> It's not a normal "change"
It's a change. It will financially penalise those who change suppliers
at the "wrong time" and thus is anti-competition. You are right - I
cannot understnad why you are insisting that it isn't a tariff change -
it changes the underlying mechanism of how the tariff is charged. That
is a change in tariff - which has to be advised to customers.
> for a couple reasons:
>
> They didn't change the headline figure of 4572 units (even
> though they then billed people for 6000+)
>
> They didn't tell anyone that anything had changed.
So, it is quite possibly an illegal change. It is a change that the
regulator should be made aware of (and the customers).
>
> And, as I've now noticed, they didn't even change the billing formula on
> the same day they changed the "rates per KW" (ie the change of tariff
> they did tell us about).
Which makes it even more a matter for the regulator.
>
> The thing it most looks like, is a billing mistake, because they are
> supposed to cap your annual usage (at the higher rate) at one number,
> and are in fact capping it a a higher number.
No, it looks like a deliberate and underhand way to profit from
customers who were likely to change suppliers during a period of
anticipated price changes.
>
>> Write to the regulator.
>
> I have already contacted them.
>
> And I'd be interested to hear from other npower gas customers, because I
> think you've all been caught by this.
Presumably you mean ex-npower customers? Changes in the charging
structure won't generally affect those that don't change suppliers.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
>>>> I hope by now you can see it's not about a tariff change in Jan 08,
>>>> but about a change of sculpting shape. (See my original table for a
>>>> month by month explanation).
>>> That is a tariff change. They may be saying that it isn't - but
>>> changing the way that they allocate different price units is a tariff
>>> change.
>> I still think you haven't grasped the problem.
>> It's not a normal "change"
>
>It's a change. It will financially penalise those who change suppliers
>at the "wrong time" and thus is anti-competition.
It's nothing to do with changing suppliers. If anything the people worst
hit were those who stayed with npower.
>You are right - I cannot understnad why you are insisting that it isn't
>a tariff change
Even if it was a tariff change, their tariff has always said they charge
4572 units at the higher rate. But they've sent people bills charged at
around 6500 units at the higher rate. That's simply not what their
tariff says.
>- it changes the underlying mechanism of how the tariff is charged.
>That is a change in tariff - which has to be advised to customers.
Let's put this "tariff change" thing aside for a moment.
What about this bit of my original enquiry (which is a legal question,
not a gas-consumer question):
>>I have an outstanding £300 bill and npower have sent two "10 day"
>>letters, despite claiming to have frozen the account a month ago when
>>I first notified the dispute. We are about on day 15, and on Friday
>>they made no mention of what was happening regarding the collection
>>process, but they *are* aware of my complaint to Energywatch, and have
>>a case number. The npower lady I talked to was also very rude.
>>
>>One strategy would be to pay the amount and then sue for a refund (my
>>claim involves a whole year of payments). This would avoid the threats
>>they are making of "sending a Debt Collection Agency to call at your
>>property" and "sharing this information with Credit Reference
>>Agencies". I know this seems like giving in to bullying, but I'm more
>>concerned about winning the moral argument in the long run (by using
>>the correct procedures) rather than merely stalling over a relatively
>>small sum that I can easily afford to pay.
>> for a couple reasons:
>> They didn't change the headline figure of 4572 units (even
>> though they then billed people for 6000+)
>> They didn't tell anyone that anything had changed.
>
>So, it is quite possibly an illegal change. It is a change that the
>regulator should be made aware of (and the customers).
That is one angle being taken by some complainants. However, even if
people had been notified they would still have been overcharged! (Or are
you suggesting that the ability to leave means it doesn't matter that if
you stay you will be charged more than the tariff says?)
>> And I'd be interested to hear from other npower gas customers,
>>because I think you've all been caught by this.
>
>Presumably you mean ex-npower customers? Changes in the charging
>structure won't generally affect those that don't change suppliers.
What npower did affected everyone who was a customer (for more than the
period May-Nov 07), there is nothing about this complaint that is linked
to changing suppliers. All that happened was that I *noticed* it because
I checked my final bill more carefully than one normally would. If I had
still been a customer today, I would have still overpaid.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
What most companies do, when they change a tariff, is to advise
customers of the change in a simplified manner ("the pound in your
pocket is still worth the same when you go shopping today") but give
details of where they can find out fully about the changes and how it
might affect them.
I suspect that when they changed the tariff in Jan, they did advise
their customers of the change "with a simplified explanation" - but also
included how to obtain full details of the new tariff (including how it
allocated units).
If anyone asking for details then was given false information - that
would be different. But I suspect that they were (perhaps after some
effort) given the correct information that would apply.
That will be their argument that customers "accepted" the change in
tariff (an the underlying methods of calculation and the effective
increase in number of full-price units over the previous year).
However, customers that did not accept the changes should not have had
them applied. The tariff, including the method of allocating units, that
they were last advised of *must* stand until the change of supplier is
complete - provided that they did advise the supplier that they had
signed up with another company.
If you were still a customer today, then, arguably, you wouldn't have
over-paid. You accepted the change in tariff in Jan. That you didn't ask
for full details is, the company would argue, your fault. The regulator
may see things differently. However, there is at least some foundation
for the change being legal.
So, yes, I am arguing that, if you choose to stay under a new tariff,
things are very different to the situation of choosing to leave.
Choosing to stay implies accepting the new t&c, including how units are
and were allocated between full an reduced price bands.
So, you are either a customer who gave notice to leave prior to the
introduction of the new tariff in Jan, or a customer who "accepted" the
new tariff (including how units were allocated).
If the former, you have one very clear and very certain argument - you
should have stayed on the agreed tariff.
If the latter, you have a very different argument - that the company did
not adequately advise the changes introduced in Jan. A far less clear an
subjective argument.
I'm still not sure which situation you are in. But you cannot be in both.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>What most companies do, when they change a tariff, is to advise
>customers of the change in a simplified manner ("the pound in your
>pocket is still worth the same when you go shopping today") but give
>details of where they can find out fully about the changes and how it
>might affect them.
>
>I suspect that when they changed the tariff in Jan, they did advise
>their customers of the change "with a simplified explanation" -
No. There have actually been four changes:
Two changes to pricing, on 30th April 07 and 4th Jan 08; which were both
announced in the normal and proper way. [And neither change altered the
4572 units a year figure]
Two changes to the sculpting profile, on 1st November and <some date in
early-mid April that's not been fully established yet>, neither change
being notified at all.
>but also included how to obtain full details of the new tariff
>(including how it allocated units).
They continue to say that 4572 units per year are allocated at the
higher rate (although people have bills with 6000+ on them). They have
never published, anywhere, as far as we can see, the sculpting profile.
>If anyone asking for details then was given false information - that
>would be different. But I suspect that they were (perhaps after some
>effort) given the correct information that would apply.
If you complain hard enough they give you some information, which is
enough to work out what they have charged. But the scheme is "incorrect"
in as much as it causes people to be charged 6000+ units a year if you
were a customer during last summer. This 'anomaly' will work its way out
of the system by Nov08, but that doesn't get people a refund for what
they've been overcharged during the 'anomaly'.
This is the best way I can think of to illustrate how the trick works
(exaggerated slightly, but it shows how 2+2=5 in npower-land:
In the spring they could say "We have a new sculpting scheme
which will apply entirely to the summer months, so that's £214
in higher-tier payments, spread between now and the Autumn
please, you can look forward to no higher-tier payments in the
Winter". And then in the Autumn saying "Thanks for the £214, but
we've changed our mind and in future we'll apply sculpting only
during the Winter and it'll be off in the Summer. Another £214
spread over the winter months please".
So at each point at which they (well, announce is the wrong word,
because they do it silently) introduce a new scheme it can be argued
that for the *next* 12 months it will have the desired effect of 4572
units a year. But because they change it part-way through the year, the
overall effect (in my example above) is 4572 TIMES TWO units in the 12
months from the first change.
>That will be their argument that customers "accepted" the change in
>tariff (an the underlying methods of calculation and the effective
>increase in number of full-price units over the previous year).
There was nothing to accept, because nothing was announced. Worse than
that, the changes have resulted in charges which are grossly in excess
of the advertised rates.
>However, customers that did not accept the changes should not have had
>them applied. The tariff, including the method of allocating units,
>that they were last advised of *must* stand until the change of
>supplier is complete - provided that they did advise the supplier that
>they had signed up with another company.
Please please forget about all that. It's a red herring.
>If you were still a customer today, then, arguably, you wouldn't have
>over-paid.
The overpayments were made every bill between last Spring and now.
>You accepted the change in tariff in Jan.
The relevant change happened silently in November.
>That you didn't ask for full details is, the company would argue, your
>fault. The regulator may see things differently. However, there is at
>least some foundation for the change being legal.
>
>So, yes, I am arguing that, if you choose to stay under a new tariff,
>things are very different to the situation of choosing to leave.
>Choosing to stay implies accepting the new t&c, including how units are
>and were allocated between full an reduced price bands.
>
>So, you are either a customer who gave notice to leave prior to the
>introduction of the new tariff in Jan, or a customer who "accepted" the
>new tariff (including how units were allocated).
>
>If the former, you have one very clear and very certain argument - you
>should have stayed on the agreed tariff.
>
>If the latter, you have a very different argument - that the company
>did not adequately advise the changes introduced in Jan. A far less
>clear an subjective argument.
>
>I'm still not sure which situation you are in. But you cannot be in both.
It's none of that. I am NOT arguing that I was overcharged during a
transitional period while changing supplier. I am saying that ALL NPOWER
CUSTOMERS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL WITH THEM OR NOT were overcharged on
previous bills.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
<snip>
> It's none of that. I am NOT arguing that I was overcharged during a
> transitional period while changing supplier. I am saying that ALL NPOWER
> CUSTOMERS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL WITH THEM OR NOT were overcharged on
> previous bills.
It's a possibility.
The company are probably arguing otherwise:
1) That customers that gave notice in January were not - because their
bills have been recalculated to remove the effect of any changes in
conditions that were introduced after the previous public announcement.
If that is not the case, then those customers have a very valid reason
to complain. The regulator would take very firm action over this, IME.
2) That customers that did not give notice in January were not - because
their acceptance included acceptance of previous unpublished changes.
I would suggest that the nest approach there is not on the basis of
"overcharging" but of "failure to adequately inform customers". The
regulator invariably takes such complaints very seriously, IIUC.
I think that we will have to agree to differ on whether the two groups
of customers have different reasons to complain and need to be
considered separately. I believe that trying to combine the two is an
unnecessary complication. The two cases are best treated individually.
--
Sue
CJM
that this is not a simple Tariff change.
Regardless, Pay-then-Sue is the way to go. You don't want the aggro of debt
collectors etc. Pay them, but make it clear that you dispute the charge.
Keep negotiating and keep the pressure on the regulator. If all else fails,
a few quid spent at the Small Claims Court might be in order.
It would be unfair if you did not win, but it isn't a given; but if people
don't resist these practices, nothing will change. 'All it takes for Evil to
succeed is for Good men to do nothing.'
Roland Perry
><snip>
>> It's none of that. I am NOT arguing that I was overcharged during a
>> transitional period while changing supplier. I am saying that ALL NPOWER
>> CUSTOMERS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL WITH THEM OR NOT were overcharged on
>> previous bills.
>
>It's a possibility.
>
>The company are probably arguing otherwise:
>
>1) That customers that gave notice in January were not - because their
>bills have been recalculated to remove the effect of any changes in
>conditions that were introduced after the previous public announcement.
But those bills HAVE NOT been recalculated, and there's element in the
new sculpting to return any money to customers. The money we were all
overcharged MONTHS AGO is LOST AND GONE FOR EVER (unless we sue etc).
>If that is not the case, then those customers have a very valid reason
>to complain. The regulator would take very firm action over this, IME.
Some people are trying to prod the regulator into taking action. Others
think that suing is a better strategy.
>2) That customers that did not give notice in January were not -
>because their acceptance included acceptance of previous unpublished
>changes.
Don't be ridiculous. In any case I did give notice, and npower have
refused to consider giving me any refund, insisting the bills are
"calculated correctly". In one sense they are. They have correctly
calculated an amount that's equally in breach of contract for all their
customers (or so we argue).
>I would suggest that the nest approach there is not on the basis of
>"overcharging" but of "failure to adequately inform customers". The
>regulator invariably takes such complaints very seriously, IIUC.
Please go back to my example of switching the tariff twice a year, to
double the charge.
Do you think such a change (if notified promptly) would absolve them
from the simple matter that it contradicted their advertised claim that
they charge just 4572 units a year, not twice that?
>I think that we will have to agree to differ on whether the two groups
>of customers have different reasons to complain and need to be
>considered separately. I believe that trying to combine the two is an
>unnecessary complication. The two cases are best treated individually.
That's why I'm trying to ignore the completely spurious issue of
transitional periods while changing supplier (that you keep bringing
up), and concentrating on the single issue that they've charged more
than they said they would (approx 6500 units not 4572) over a period of
a year.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Apr 2008, CJM <cjm...@removeme-yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>I can see what Palindrome is trying to say, but I'm in agreement with
>you that this is not a simple Tariff change.
What Palindrome seems unable to understand (and as I said earlier it's
not all bad, it helps me redefine my explanations) is that this dispute
is absolutely nothing at all to do with failing to get a concession of
gas at old-prices while transitioning to a new supplier.
It's about how much *all customers* were charged for gas over the year
starting April 07. (So I'm probably better off than some, having
resigned effective February).
The only reason I mentioned I was leaving was because it was only when
examining my *final* bill that I saw clues which led me back to problems
with *earlier* bills, having revisited them.
>Regardless, Pay-then-Sue is the way to go.
That's what I was considering.
--
Roland Perry
PM
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eS3Ax9tu...@perry.co.uk...
It's none of that. I am NOT arguing that I was overcharged during a
transitional period while changing supplier. I am saying that ALL NPOWER
CUSTOMERS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL WITH THEM OR NOT were overcharged on
previous bills.
=====================
You need more than one year's bills to prove that.
If you are with npower for 2 years, say Jan '06 to Dec '07, and the first
year the weighting is in the last 6 months, then they change and the second
year the weighting is in the first 6 months, then of course if you look at
the year from Jul '06 to Jun '07 you'll see a higher figure; but you can't
extrapolate that out over the two years.
Kevin Ashley
> It seems that many people are in dispute with npower about their gas
> bills, and no, Energywatch and Ofgem do not appear to be showing any
> signs of helping (helping the 'many people' - my complaint is in its
> early days).
>
As far as I know they are doing something. I thought the situation
you described was familiar, and it was. According to these reports:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/15/householdbills.consumeraffairs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/09/householdbills.consumeraffairs
Energywatch has taken this up and Ofgem are considering
the complaint. For Palindrome and others, the articles provide
pretty solid evidence that this is anything other than
transparent pricing, which means it's wrong even if the end
result is a benefit to the customer.
The articles report that the person who reported this then has
received a goodwill payment as compensation, without npower
actually acknowledging their mistake.
Good luck, Roland, whatever strategy you decide to follow.
Roland Perry
Apr 2008, m...@privacy.net remarked:
>> And I'd be interested to hear from other npower gas customers, because I
>> think you've all been caught by this.
>
Then I suspect you were also over-charged during the last 12 months.
Look at your last 12 months of bills and just add up the number of
"higher rate" units. It'll come to a bit over 6,000 I expect (not the
4572 in the tariff).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2008, Kevin Ashley <K.As...@ulcc.ac.uk> remarked:
>As far as I know they are doing something. I thought the situation
>you described was familiar, and it was. According to these reports:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/15/householdbills.consumeraffai
>rs
The Guardian isn't being as helpful as it might, because the use of the
"£26" figure is not as typical as they suggest. I'm pretty sure most
people will have lost more than that.
Also, Ofgem are taking the "you didn't tell everyone you were going to
fiddle them out of £50" angle, rather than "refund the £50" (because
it's OK to overcharge as long as you tell people??) Although they may
consider this is a much easier case to prove [and the lack of
notification as far as I can see is manifest].
It's also a bit misleading to say that there are "winners and losers".
As far as I can see the only "winners" in this scenario are people who
cancelled their gas last May and June, who would have saved about £2.50;
but sadly it's not possible to refute the "some winners some losers"
statement entirely. (Anyone who stayed longer, even those with npower
today, lose).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Apr 2008, PM <pm@m_.com.invalid> remarked:
>It's none of that. I am NOT arguing that I was overcharged during a
>transitional period while changing supplier. I am saying that ALL NPOWER
>CUSTOMERS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL WITH THEM OR NOT were overcharged on
>previous bills.
>
>=====================
>
>You need more than one year's bills to prove that.
>If you are with npower for 2 years, say Jan '06 to Dec '07, and the first
>year the weighting is in the last 6 months, then they change and the second
>year the weighting is in the first 6 months, then of course if you look at
>the year from Jul '06 to Jun '07 you'll see a higher figure; but you can't
>extrapolate that out over the two years.
I do have two years (+) of bills. And they will prove the same. Here are
the numbers for Jan 06 to Dec 07:
13.8 Jan 06
13.6
12.2
9.8
7.1
4.2
2.4 Jul 06
2.4
4.2
7.3
10.3
12.7
13.8 Jan 07
13.6
12.2
8.3 Apr 07
8.3
8.3
8.3 Jul 07
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
19.3 Dec 07
Which period would you like to add up? What is a "year" for you? (npower
almost seem to be saying it's the period between changes-in-tariff,
which is clearly an attempt to confuse).
Over the whole two years it's 225%
Over just 2007 it's 125%
We can even do 2007 and 2008:
13.8 Jan 07
13.6
12.2
8.3 Apr 07
8.3
8.3
8.3 Jul 07
8.3
8.3
8.3
19.3
19.3 Dec 07
19.3 Jan 08
19.3
5.94
5.93
1
1
1 Jul 08
1
1
5.93
19.3
19.3 Dec 08
So over that two year period it's 236%
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <fuiacl$6gc$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk>, at 16:10:38 on Mon, 21 Apr
> 2008, Kevin Ashley <K.As...@ulcc.ac.uk> remarked:
>> As far as I know they are doing something. I thought the situation
>> you described was familiar, and it was. According to these reports:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/15/householdbills.consumeraffai
>> rs
>
> The Guardian isn't being as helpful as it might, because the use of the
> "£26" figure is not as typical as they suggest. I'm pretty sure most
> people will have lost more than that.
>
> Also, Ofgem are taking the "you didn't tell everyone you were going to
> fiddle them out of £50" angle, rather than "refund the £50" (because
> it's OK to overcharge as long as you tell people??) Although they may
> consider this is a much easier case to prove [and the lack of
> notification as far as I can see is manifest].
As in, "I would suggest that the best approach is not on the basis of
"overcharging" but of "failure to adequately inform customers". The
regulator invariably takes such complaints very seriously, IIUC."
OK, so you didn't like my message that, yes they can sign customers up
with a "first 2000 units on high" and then change the way of calculating
this so that any customers who continue will end up paying for 3000
units at full price over the year. The key is that they can only do this
*if* they tell customers in advance and the customers have the choice
about whether the accept the changes or change suppliers. They don't
appear to have done this - inform the customers, that is.
You totally missed my point about customers who leave. It isn't just the
remaining part of the contract that has to stay frozen on the last
published t&c and tariff - it is the whole period from that last
published t&c that has to be calculated at the last published tariff.
Yes, if they sign you up in January and say "we will take all the years
worth of full rate units from Jan-Jun" and then, six month's later say,
"we will change things so we will take all the full rate units from
August -December - and reset the tariff clock" then that is permitted.
But the customers *must* be told before the change takes effect - so
they can change suppliers an never get to pay those full rate units from
August. No customer, who leaves, will have paid for more than the
advertised number of peak units in the year. Customers that stay have
agreed to the clock being reset an to buying, say, 3000 units at full
price. But they must be told in advance that this is happening.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>> As far as I know they are doing something. I thought the situation
>>> you described was familiar, and it was. According to these reports:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/15/householdbills.consumeraffai
>>> rs
>> The Guardian isn't being as helpful as it might, because the use of
>>the "£26" figure is not as typical as they suggest. I'm pretty sure
>>most people will have lost more than that.
>> Also, Ofgem are taking the "you didn't tell everyone you were going
>>to fiddle them out of £50" angle, rather than "refund the £50"
>>(because it's OK to overcharge as long as you tell people??) Although
>>they may consider this is a much easier case to prove [and the lack
>>of notification as far as I can see is manifest].
>
>As in, "I would suggest that the best approach is not on the basis of
>"overcharging" but of "failure to adequately inform customers". The
>regulator invariably takes such complaints very seriously, IIUC."
Failure to advertise might get a regulatory slap, but not a refund for
all the customers, I reckon.
>OK, so you didn't like my message that, yes they can sign customers up
>with a "first 2000 units on high" and then change the way of
>calculating this so that any customers who continue will end up paying
>for 3000 units at full price over the year.
It's not that I don't like it, but this is misrepresentation, pure and
simple.
> The key is that they can only do this *if* they tell customers in
>advance and the customers have the choice about whether the accept the
>changes or change suppliers. They don't appear to have done this -
>inform the customers, that is.
They didn't inform, that's for sure.
>You totally missed my point about customers who leave.
It's not relevant to my complaint.
>It isn't just the remaining part of the contract that has to stay
>frozen on the last published t&c and tariff - it is the whole period
>from that last published t&c that has to be calculated at the last
>published tariff.
Those two sound the same to me:
If the "last published tariff" was June, and they notify in August of a
change in September - if you get in quick enough you can have the June
rate until you are switched (even if it takes until October).
Or do you mean the sculpting as well as the pence-per unit. Except they
never tell people when (or how) they are changing the sculpting; and it
doesn't happen at the same time as the pence-per-minute hikes either.
>Yes, if they sign you up in January and say "we will take all the years
>worth of full rate units from Jan-Jun" and then, six month's later say,
>"we will change things so we will take all the full rate units from
>August -December - and reset the tariff clock" then that is permitted.
Why? Their contract says, and they persist in saying, "we'll charge you
4572 units a year at the higher rate", and the scenario you describe
simply doesn't deliver that. Jan-Dec is a year.
If they didn't promise to cap the higher rate units at 4572, and instead
said "we'll charge you higher rate units as and when we think fit, you
can't predict how many a year, just wait and see", that would be
different.
> But the customers *must* be told before the change takes effect - so
>they can change suppliers an never get to pay those full rate units
>from August. No customer, who leaves, will have paid for more than the
>advertised number of peak units in the year. Customers that stay have
>agreed to the clock being reset an to buying, say, 3000 units at full
>price. But they must be told in advance that this is happening.
They aren't told in advance, and it's contrary to the published tariff,
which states quite explicitly "4572 a year".
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <ob3Pj.213488$K96.1...@fe03.news.easynews.com>, at 17:40:05
> on Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>
>>>> As far as I know they are doing something. I thought the situation
>>>> you described was familiar, and it was. According to these reports:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/15/householdbills.consumeraffai
>>>>
>>>> rs
>>> The Guardian isn't being as helpful as it might, because the use of
>>> the "£26" figure is not as typical as they suggest. I'm pretty sure
>>> most people will have lost more than that.
>>> Also, Ofgem are taking the "you didn't tell everyone you were going
>>> to fiddle them out of £50" angle, rather than "refund the £50"
>>> (because it's OK to overcharge as long as you tell people??)
>>> Although they may consider this is a much easier case to prove [and
>>> the lack of notification as far as I can see is manifest].
>>
>> As in, "I would suggest that the best approach is not on the basis of
>> "overcharging" but of "failure to adequately inform customers". The
>> regulator invariably takes such complaints very seriously, IIUC."
>
> Failure to advertise might get a regulatory slap, but not a refund for
> all the customers, I reckon.
Every time I have complained to the regulator, I have received
compensation from the company concerned. Only one cheque was less than
50GBP.
In all cases it was for more than the amount I was complaining about :)
>
>> OK, so you didn't like my message that, yes they can sign customers up
>> with a "first 2000 units on high" and then change the way of
>> calculating this so that any customers who continue will end up paying
>> for 3000 units at full price over the year.
>
> It's not that I don't like it, but this is misrepresentation, pure and
> simple.
>
>> The key is that they can only do this *if* they tell customers in
>> advance and the customers have the choice about whether the accept the
>> changes or change suppliers. They don't appear to have done this -
>> inform the customers, that is.
>
> They didn't inform, that's for sure.
Which the regulator will hammer them for.
>
>> You totally missed my point about customers who leave.
>
> It's not relevant to my complaint.
>
>> It isn't just the remaining part of the contract that has to stay
>> frozen on the last published t&c and tariff - it is the whole period
>> from that last published t&c that has to be calculated at the last
>> published tariff.
>
> Those two sound the same to me:
>
> If the "last published tariff" was June, and they notify in August of a
> change in September - if you get in quick enough you can have the June
> rate until you are switched (even if it takes until October).
>
> Or do you mean the sculpting as well as the pence-per unit. Except they
> never tell people when (or how) they are changing the sculpting; and it
> doesn't happen at the same time as the pence-per-minute hikes either.
There will have been a "sculpting scheme" at the time of the last
published tariff. That scheme has to be applied to the account of anyone
leaving in advance of the next published tariff taking effect. Or giving
notice of their intention to leave prior to that tariff taking effect.
>
>> Yes, if they sign you up in January and say "we will take all the
>> years worth of full rate units from Jan-Jun" and then, six month's
>> later say, "we will change things so we will take all the full rate
>> units from August -December - and reset the tariff clock" then that is
>> permitted.
>
> Why? Their contract says, and they persist in saying, "we'll charge you
> 4572 units a year at the higher rate", and the scenario you describe
> simply doesn't deliver that. Jan-Dec is a year.
What I wrote was qualified by the paragraph that followed.
>
> If they didn't promise to cap the higher rate units at 4572, and instead
> said "we'll charge you higher rate units as and when we think fit, you
> can't predict how many a year, just wait and see", that would be different.
They are allowed to make changes. But they have to tell their customers
about them in advance. The promise would hold - but only for customers
that rejected the changes, ie changed supplier.
>
>> But the customers *must* be told before the change takes effect - so
>> they can change suppliers an never get to pay those full rate units
>> from August. No customer, who leaves, will have paid for more than the
>> advertised number of peak units in the year. Customers that stay have
>> agreed to the clock being reset an to buying, say, 3000 units at full
>> price. But they must be told in advance that this is happening.
>
> They aren't told in advance, and it's contrary to the published tariff,
> which states quite explicitly "4572 a year".
"They aren't told in advance". - They *have* to be told in advance. That
is the key point - that is where they have failed in a primary duty.
They should have advised their customers of changes, including
"sculpting" changes. They didn't. That is the point to make to the
regulator.
If the regulator accepts that they failed to advise customers about
impending changes, then customers will either get refunds or
compensation, or both.
--
Sue
PM
There are certainly 14 consecutive months (Jul 06 to Aug 07) where that
month plus the next 11 add up to more than 100%; from your figures you can
prove you've been overcharged.
Good luck.
Mark
wrote:
IANAL but IMHO if the contact states that you have X units on the
higher tariff and they charge you more then they are in breach of
contract and you have every right to get a refund of the difference.
I'm sure the courts would agree. Is it really any more complicated
than this?
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.
Roland Perry
>> Failure to advertise might get a regulatory slap, but not a refund
>>for all the customers, I reckon.
>
>Every time I have complained to the regulator, I have received
>compensation from the company concerned. Only one cheque was less than
>50GBP.
A refund for complainants is one thing, but this thing seems to me to be
such a systematic deviation from the advertised price that all customers
should be given a refund.
>In all cases it was for more than the amount I was complaining about :)
An allowance (inadequate) for your time making the complaint?
>>> You totally missed my point about customers who leave.
>> It's not relevant to my complaint.
>>
>>> It isn't just the remaining part of the contract that has to stay
>>>frozen on the last published t&c and tariff - it is the whole period
>>>from that last published t&c that has to be calculated at the last
>>>published tariff.
>> Those two sound the same to me:
>> If the "last published tariff" was June, and they notify in August
>>of a change in September - if you get in quick enough you can have
>>the June rate until you are switched (even if it takes until October).
>> Or do you mean the sculpting as well as the pence-per unit. Except
>>they never tell people when (or how) they are changing the sculpting;
>>and it doesn't happen at the same time as the pence-per-minute hikes
>>either.
>
>There will have been a "sculpting scheme" at the time of the last
>published tariff. That scheme has to be applied to the account of
>anyone leaving in advance of the next published tariff taking effect.
>Or giving notice of their intention to leave prior to that tariff
>taking effect.
The sculpting scheme in force at the last tariff change was the same as
applies now. The sculpting was changed (silently) in Nov 07, before the
announcement of the tariff change which took effect in Jan 08.
>They are allowed to make changes. But they have to tell their customers
>about them in advance. The promise would hold - but only for customers
>that rejected the changes, ie changed supplier.
I'm still struggling to understand how they can legitimately change the
sculpting to a scheme that contradicts their tariff. Of course they
could change the sculpting from 4572 to (say) 6000, but they continued
to say that it was 4572.
>If the regulator accepts that they failed to advise customers about
>impending changes,
They still don't (even after all this fuss) voluntarily disclose the
sculpting shape to customers (you have to make a complaint and hassle
their "sculpting team").
>then customers will either get refunds or compensation, or both.
One positive outcome might be for the regulator to tell them to
re-calculate everyone's bills keeping the historical sculpting, rather
than the new "flat rate" sculpting last summer that is the cause of the
overcharging. However, as npower say that the reason for the change was
to simplify the introduction of a new billing system, it seems unlikely
they could cope with doing that.
--
Roland Perry
PM
"Palindrome" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ob3Pj.213488$K96.1...@fe03.news.easynews.com...
Yes, if they sign you up in January and say "we will take all the years
worth of full rate units from Jan-Jun" and then, six month's later say,
"we will change things so we will take all the full rate units from
August -December - and reset the tariff clock" then that is permitted.
===============
That can't be right, surely? They can continue to say "we'll charge 4572
units at the higher rate each year" and go on to charge double that? Year
after year?
Palindrome
<snip>
> IANAL but IMHO if the contact states that you have X units on the
> higher tariff and they charge you more then they are in breach of
> contract and you have every right to get a refund of the difference.
> I'm sure the courts would agree. Is it really any more complicated
> than this?
There is one extra proviso in the contract that is all important. The
company's right to change the agreement - subject to adequately
informing the customer of the change. The customer has the right not to
accept the change by taking his custom elsewhere - remaining on the
original contract until the transfer is complete.
{Ignore the following which is purely background about what happened}
Originally, there were only standing charge + unit price tariffs. Then
"no standing charge" hi-lo unit price tariffs were introduced. At that
time the number of hi price units was split evenly between quarters.
However, some heavy use customers changed supplier/tariff to "no
standing charge" as winter approached, bought only one quarter's worth
of high price units (plus heck of a lot of lot price ones) and switched
to a different supplier/tariff in the Spring. It saved them money but
cost the supplier dear. They only got one quarter's hi rate income but
had to supply almost a whole year's worth of lo rate energy.
Some suppliers reacted to that by shifting the year's worth of hi-price
units to the Winter quarter. The idea being to ensure that they got a
year's worth of hi rate income. Fine, as long as they advised their
customers.
However, the "rate tarts" then switched to them in the Spring instead,
in droves, and were clearly going to go elsewhere before Winter
approached- to avoid the high price units. The companies would have got
zero hi rate income from them, So the companies changed the charging
model yet again. Fine, as long as they advised their customers.
These changes had the /unintended/* effect of particularly
disadvantaging those customers that weren't swapping suppliers every few
months. They ended up paying for more hi price units over that year than
they were promised. However, provided they had been told about the
changes, that would have been just their hard luck. Companies are
allowed to make changes.
*Some put this down to a deliberate act to screw customers - rather than
a series of cock-ups by people that didn't anticipate what "rate tarts"
would do. Personally, I subscribe to the "cock-up" lobby.
end background}
So the situation is indeed simple. The company failed to advise the
customer of changes. The changes were quite permissible. Not telling
customers wasn't. Simple.
The customers, that were affected, have a right to compensation for the
company's failure to inform.
--
Sue
Palindrome
customer who is informed and does not accept the change will not have to
pay for more than 4572 units at the higher rate.
He would, of course, have changed suppliers. As, hopefully, people would
do in droves should a company do such a thing, year after year. Which is
all that is stopping the company doing this, year after year.
But the company cannot do it *and not tell the customers*.
--
Sue
Mark
wrote:
Thanks for your very detailed reponse, but I still don't really
understand why the failure to inform is so important. AFAIK they are
still stating that 4572 units are charged at the higher rate - this
has not changed. As I understand it they have charged most customers
more than this. Surely this is enough to be a breach of contract?
Roland Perry
on Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>Mark wrote:
><snip>
>> IANAL but IMHO if the contact states that you have X units on the
>> higher tariff and they charge you more then they are in breach of
>> contract and you have every right to get a refund of the difference.
>> I'm sure the courts would agree. Is it really any more complicated
>> than this?
>
>There is one extra proviso in the contract that is all important. The
>company's right to change the agreement - subject to adequately
>informing the customer of the change.
The one thing they have not changed (for years) is the statement that
they'll charge 4572 units a year at the higher rate.
>The customer has the right not to accept the change by taking his
>custom elsewhere - remaining on the original contract until the
>transfer is complete.
The contract says "We may change our prices, discounts, or the way we
charge for gas. If we increase prices or reduce discounts we will tell
you within 65 working days".
[I'm not sure what that means, is it "you might have been on a new price
for 65 days before we get around to telling you"?? If so this sounds
like they are preparing the ground for only telling people by way of
their next bill - elsewhere they say "you can find details of our
charges on your bill"]
However, they make no promise to tell people about changes in "the way
we charge for gas" - if sculpting comes into that category.
>{Ignore the following which is purely background about what happened}
>
>Originally, there were only standing charge + unit price tariffs. Then
>"no standing charge" hi-lo unit price tariffs were introduced. At that
>time the number of hi price units was split evenly between quarters.
>
>However, some heavy use customers changed supplier/tariff to "no
>standing charge" as winter approached, bought only one quarter's worth
>of high price units (plus heck of a lot of lot price ones) and switched
>to a different supplier/tariff in the Spring. It saved them money but
>cost the supplier dear. They only got one quarter's hi rate income but
>had to supply almost a whole year's worth of lo rate energy.
That makes no sense at all. The standing charge was the same every
quarter, so the replacement "virtual standing charge" would result in
neither the supplier or customer winning or losing if only one quarter
of gas was bought at an evenly split tariff.
>Some suppliers reacted to that by shifting the year's worth of hi-price
>units to the Winter quarter. The idea being to ensure that they got a
>year's worth of hi rate income. Fine, as long as they advised their
>customers.
Not fine. Why should they get four quarters worth of "virtual standing
charge" in just one quarter. That's nonsense.
>However, the "rate tarts" then switched to them in the Spring instead,
>in droves, and were clearly going to go elsewhere before Winter
>approached- to avoid the high price units. The companies would have got
>zero hi rate income from them, So the companies changed the charging
>model yet again. Fine, as long as they advised their customers.
>
>These changes had the /unintended/* effect of particularly
>disadvantaging those customers that weren't swapping suppliers every
>few months. They ended up paying for more hi price units over that year
>than they were promised.
This is, however, avoidable. The long term customers could have their
annual number of units capped separately.
So, for example, as a long term customer, starting the sum at April 07
[ie when the sculpting first changed] I had paid for 4572 units at the
high rate by about the end of January - so all my units until the end of
March should be at the lower rate.
Or if you want to do it on calendar years, my 4572 units would have been
"paid in full" in 2007 by the second week of October.
>However, provided they had been told about the changes, that would have
>been just their hard luck. Companies are allowed to make changes.
But not ones that contradict the tariff.
>*Some put this down to a deliberate act to screw customers - rather
>than a series of cock-ups by people that didn't anticipate what "rate
>tarts" would do. Personally, I subscribe to the "cock-up" lobby.
>
>end background}
>
>So the situation is indeed simple. The company failed to advise the
>customer of changes. The changes were quite permissible. Not telling
>customers wasn't. Simple.
>
>The customers, that were affected, have a right to compensation for the
>company's failure to inform.
What sort of compensation do you have in mind? Would a refund of all the
units from the un-notified change in April 07, to date, that exceed 4572
be right? That's very similar to my "capping" sum above, btw.
--
Roland Perry
Graham Murray
> However, some heavy use customers changed supplier/tariff to "no
> standing charge" as winter approached, bought only one quarter's worth
> of high price units (plus heck of a lot of lot price ones) and
> switched to a different supplier/tariff in the Spring. It saved them
> money but cost the supplier dear. They only got one quarter's hi rate
> income but had to supply almost a whole year's worth of lo rate
> energy.
>
> Some suppliers reacted to that by shifting the year's worth of
> hi-price units to the Winter quarter. The idea being to ensure that
> they got a year's worth of hi rate income. Fine, as long as they
> advised their customers.
>
> However, the "rate tarts" then switched to them in the Spring instead,
> in droves, and were clearly going to go elsewhere before Winter
> approached- to avoid the high price units. The companies would have
> got zero hi rate income from them, So the companies changed the
> charging model yet again. Fine, as long as they advised their
> customers.
Would a better scheme not be to charge the high rate for the first N
units following date of the customer joining (or the date of starting
the scheme for existing customers) and annually thereafter if the
customer does not switch. That way, when a customer switches suppliers
they will pay the higher (in lieu of standing charge) rate for the first
units for which they are billed by the new supplier. Or to charge the
higher rate for the first N/P units (where P is the number of billing
periods in the year, typically 4) consumed for each billing period
rather than just in one billing period.
Roland Perry
>Provided they inform the customer before the change is introduced. A
>customer who is informed and does not accept the change will not have
>to pay for more than 4572 units at the higher rate.
Assuming we can prove that they didn't tell people, what's the remedy
today?
Would you support the theory that people should be charged at the
original (pre-April 07) sculpting rate for the whole time between April
and today? And would such a refund be contingent upon the customer
deciding the change *now* (at the point that, via a judgement from the
Ombudsman, he is officially informed of a change that happened 13 months
ago?)
It's a bit more complicated because there has been a second
(unannounced) change in between.
>He would, of course, have changed suppliers. As, hopefully, people
>would do in droves should a company do such a thing, year after year.
>Which is all that is stopping the company doing this, year after year.
The difficulty is that the change also put the company in breach of
contract (or is it Trades Description?) by having a sculpting profile
that charged more than 4572 units in a year (irrespective of which 12
months you choose, although some 12-month periods are worse than
others).
Which 12 months do you think their promise of "4572 each year", repeated
in their letter last week telling me to get lost, ought to apply to?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22 Apr 2008, Graham Murray <news...@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:
>Would a better scheme not be to charge the high rate for the first N
>units following date of the customer joining (or the date of starting
>the scheme for existing customers) and annually thereafter if the
>customer does not switch. That way, when a customer switches suppliers
>they will pay the higher (in lieu of standing charge) rate for the first
>units for which they are billed by the new supplier.
That'll tend to introduce "bill shock" in the first quarter, and also
dissuade people from switching more often than once a year - so I can't
see the regulator being delighted.
>Or to charge the higher rate for the first N/P units (where P is the
>number of billing periods in the year, typically 4) consumed for each
>billing period rather than just in one billing period.
That's the sensible scheme, and one that several suppliers use. It was
even the scheme that nPower used last summer (the transition to and from
causing the anomalies we are discussing).
It seems to have no "edge effects" that create either winners or losers
when someone switches. All in all, a perfect solution. Apart from one
tiny problem: some people won't use as much as 1/4 of 4572 units per
quarter in the summer, so the supplier may have lost a little revenue.
It would be acceptable to "carry forward" such a shortfall, I think,
charging for more units at the higher rate on the next bill. Although
that does start to give some leverage to "switchers" (because they can
leave that shortfall behind them - or maybe one of the rules for people
switching should be a "closing penalty", a bit like some ADSL suppliers
have).
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <xsiPj.217966$K96.1...@fe03.news.easynews.com>, at 11:15:15
> on Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>
>> Provided they inform the customer before the change is introduced. A
>> customer who is informed and does not accept the change will not have
>> to pay for more than 4572 units at the higher rate.
>
> Assuming we can prove that they didn't tell people, what's the remedy
> today?
The regulator.
>
> Would you support the theory that people should be charged at the
> original (pre-April 07) sculpting rate for the whole time between April
> and today? And would such a refund be contingent upon the customer
> deciding the change *now* (at the point that, via a judgement from the
> Ombudsman, he is officially informed of a change that happened 13 months
> ago?)
Unfortunately my views won't influence the regulator. He will either
presumably either decide that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead
customers, or an honest mistake. What he requires the company to do will
be contingent on that.
>
> It's a bit more complicated because there has been a second
> (unannounced) change in between.
>
>> He would, of course, have changed suppliers. As, hopefully, people
>> would do in droves should a company do such a thing, year after year.
>> Which is all that is stopping the company doing this, year after year.
>
> The difficulty is that the change also put the company in breach of
> contract (or is it Trades Description?) by having a sculpting profile
> that charged more than 4572 units in a year (irrespective of which 12
> months you choose, although some 12-month periods are worse than others).
>
> Which 12 months do you think their promise of "4572 each year", repeated
> in their letter last week telling me to get lost, ought to apply to?
The company was always free to change the rules, including resetting the
clock. The "breach of contract" was in failing to tell the customers.
The regulator will decide whether that was intentional, or not.
--
Sue
Roland Perry
>>> Provided they inform the customer before the change is introduced. A
>>>customer who is informed and does not accept the change will not have
>>>to pay for more than 4572 units at the higher rate.
>> Assuming we can prove that they didn't tell people, what's the
>>remedy today?
>
>The regulator.
No, I meant "what money can I expect to get back, according to your view
of the world".
>> Which 12 months do you think their promise of "4572 each year",
>>repeated in their letter last week telling me to get lost, ought to
>>apply to?
>
>The company was always free to change the rules, including resetting
>the clock.
You are avoiding the issue.
>The "breach of contract" was in failing to tell the customers. The
>regulator will decide whether that was intentional, or not.
Their computer did it by accident.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
> In message <6WlPj.507652$Gl5.3...@fe02.news.easynews.com>, at 14:45:26
> on Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>
>>>> Provided they inform the customer before the change is introduced. A
>>>> customer who is informed and does not accept the change will not
>>>> have to pay for more than 4572 units at the higher rate.
>>> Assuming we can prove that they didn't tell people, what's the
>>> remedy today?
>>
>> The regulator.
>
> No, I meant "what money can I expect to get back, according to your view
> of the world".
If you are happy with a complete stab in the dark. The regulator fined
one company 700K for something that only affected 20K of its 6M
customers. It fined National Grid 41M. I would expect them to do a deal
whereby the company would be let off the hook in exchange for giving
"each of its customers" an agreed flat rate of compensation. I'd reckon
on somewhere between 20-50 GBP per customer.
The "each of the customers" being the customers that existed when either
of the unpublished changes took place.
>
>>> Which 12 months do you think their promise of "4572 each year",
>>> repeated in their letter last week telling me to get lost, ought to
>>> apply to?
>>
>> The company was always free to change the rules, including resetting
>> the clock.
>
> You are avoiding the issue.
Not intentionally. As you mentioned previously, they could have
announced that they were changing to 6000 units. They could have
announced that they were changing to 2000 units. They could have
announced that they were resetting the clock. They were free to do any
of these things - any of which would have resulted in customers no
longer paying for 4572 full price units a year. A published change would
have cancelled out the promise. What they did was reset the clock.
>
>> The "breach of contract" was in failing to tell the customers. The
>> regulator will decide whether that was intentional, or not.
>
> Their computer did it by accident.
It certainly didn't make the decision as to whether it was necessary to
tell the customers, or not. If the regulator comes to the conclusion
that they did decide to mislead the customers - the sky will fall on
them. Expect a multi-million fine as well as the compensation package.
Roland Perry
>>I meant "what money can I expect to get back, according to your view
>>of the world".
>
>If you are happy with a complete stab in the dark. The regulator fined
>one company 700K for something that only affected 20K of its 6M
>customers. It fined National Grid 41M. I would expect them to do a deal
>whereby the company would be let off the hook in exchange for giving
>"each of its customers" an agreed flat rate of compensation. I'd reckon
>on somewhere between 20-50 GBP per customer.
Thanks, although my overcharge is 1837 units at an average of about 3.5p
a unit, which is £65 (I could do the sum more accurately later).
>The "each of the customers" being the customers that existed when
>either of the unpublished changes took place.
That's also a good call.
>>>> Which 12 months do you think their promise of "4572 each year",
>>>>repeated in their letter last week telling me to get lost, ought to
>>>>apply to?
>>>
>>> The company was always free to change the rules, including resetting
>>>the clock.
>> You are avoiding the issue.
>
>Not intentionally. As you mentioned previously, they could have
>announced that they were changing to 6000 units. They could have
>announced that they were changing to 2000 units. They could have
>announced that they were resetting the clock. They were free to do any
>of these things - any of which would have resulted in customers no
>longer paying for 4572 full price units a year. A published change
>would have cancelled out the promise. What they did was reset the clock.
Although none of this explains the "breach of contract" issue where they
have always said it's 4572 per year.
>>> The "breach of contract" was in failing to tell the customers. The
>>>regulator will decide whether that was intentional, or not.
>> Their computer did it by accident.
>
>It certainly didn't make the decision as to whether it was necessary to
>tell the customers, or not.
I was being sarcastic.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
<snip>
> Although none of this explains the "breach of contract" issue where they
> have always said it's 4572 per year.
We will have to disagree on that one. It generally isn't a breach of
contract if both parties agree to a change in the contract.
They should have notified their customers so their customers had the
opportunity to reject the change.
They are allowed to assume that customers, that have been notified, have
accepted the change if they don't reject it.
>
>>>> The "breach of contract" was in failing to tell the customers. The
>>>> regulator will decide whether that was intentional, or not.
>>> Their computer did it by accident.
>>
>> It certainly didn't make the decision as to whether it was necessary
>> to tell the customers, or not.
>
> I was being sarcastic.
I know :). I was trying to be funny too. Don't worry, I won't quit my
day job :)
--
Sue
PM
> Roland Perry wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Although none of this explains the "breach of contract" issue where they
> > have always said it's 4572 per year.
>
> We will have to disagree on that one. It generally isn't a breach of
> contract if both parties agree to a change in the contract.
Do you agree that npower have charged the higher rate for 4572 units a year
for the last 2 years? I don't.
It's like the current crop of Broadband adverts that promises "broadband for
only £6.49 a month" when you can't get it for £6.49 a month - you're locked
in to a 12-month contract paying an average of £11.36 a month.
Roland Perry
>only £6.49 a month" when you can't get it for £6.49 a month - you're locked
>in to a 12-month contract paying an average of £11.36 a month.
Those adverts probably have a small asterisk and an explanation - one of
the problems with nPower is a complete lack of transparency about the
sculpting issue.
That's the whole existence and means of operation of the sculpting, not
*just* a lack of telling people when it changes.
Indeed, the absolutely only piece of information about it, which has
never changed, is the "4572 a year" claim.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>>they have always said it's 4572 per year.
>
>We will have to disagree on that one. It generally isn't a breach of
>contract if both parties agree to a change in the contract.
The "4572" aspect HAS NOT CHANGED (sorry for shouting).
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
A bit OT, but the situation with local buses might draw a parallel.
The company claimed, "Bus fare increases capped at 5%". Yet many
passengers are now paying 10% more. But the company maintains its claim
that "Bus fare increases were capped at 5%"
How they did it was simple. They altered the routes. The old routes no
longer existed. The new routes stopped in the same places, with
typically a new "request stop" added (but not advertised widely - so the
buses rarely stop there).
Passengers, of course, saw their fares go up by 10% - yet the company
could still claim that they hadn't.
Your "4572" has simply had a request stop of its own added. ;)
--
Sue
Roland Perry
on Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
That analogy is broken I'm afraid. The bus company would say "your
annual fare is capped at £45.72", and then put up prices so people paid
£60.00; while still claiming in their price list that "The fares are
capped at £45.72 a year".
--
Roland Perry
Humbug
wrote:
>Their computer did it by accident.
Computers do what they're told.
Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>>Their computer did it by accident.
>
>Computers do what they're told.
>Nothing more, nothing less.
You didn't get the joke then?
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
> It arises from npower scrapping Standing Charges and replacing them with
> a two-tier system that they call "Primary" and "Secondary", with a
> tariff that claims to charge "the first 4572 units each year at the
> primary rate". The two rates are (in my area, to 2 significant figures)
> currently 6.7p and 2.0p; so the "virtual standing charge" is 4572*4.7p
> or £214 a year.
>
> Other suppliers use a similar system, but unlike npower simply spread
> the 'virtual standing charge' of higher priced units equally across the
> year, resulting in predictable and verifiable bills.
>
> npower, however, use a scheme they call "sculpting" which apportions it
> differently throughout the year, in particular making the 'virtual
> standing charge' higher in the winter than the summer. There is some
> debate about whether this is right or wrong, and whether it causes
> anomalies if you join or leave npower part-way through a year [more
> later on what "a year" is], but I don't want to get distracted by that.
I was starting to suspect something fishy. Do you happen to know how
long they've been doing this dodgy "sculpting" --- only since 2006?
Also, do you have a postal address for Energywatch? (Their website
provides only a web-form for complaints, but I'm sure they used to
take them in writing.)
Colin Wilson
> provides only a web-form for complaints, but I'm sure they used to
> take them in writing.)
archive.org is your friend here, but it might be worth confirming via
phone that the offices are still open :-)
energywatch Head Office
4th Floor, Artillery House
Artillery Row, London SW1P 1RT
energywatch Scotland
Delta House
50 West Nile Street
Glasgow
G1 2NP
energywatch North West
Boulton House
Chorlton Street
Manchester
M1 3HY
energywatch North East
8th floor, Percy House
Percy Street
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 4PW
Fax:0191 230 4995
energywatch Central
Civic House
156 Great Charles Street
Birmingham
B3 3HN
energywatch Wales
5th Floor (West Wing)
St. David=3Fs House
Wood Street
Cardiff CF10 1ER
energywatch South
5th Floor
Heron House
8-10 Christchurch Road
Bournemouth
Dorset BH1 3NA
energywatch South East
3rd Floor
Artillery House
Artillery Row
London
SW1P 1RT
Roland Perry
Apr 2008, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>I was starting to suspect something fishy. Do you happen to know how
>long they've been doing this dodgy "sculpting" --- only since 2006?
They've been doing the sculpting for years. The problem arises because
they changed the sculpting from an annual cycle, to a flat line, for
about six months starting approx April 07. It's a (different) annual
cycle again now.
The issue arises because in the cyclical environment(s) the summer has a
very low number of units charged at the higher rate, whereas last summer
they switched to charging 1/12 of the annual rate per month. As a result
customers whose accounts include that period ended up paying up to
approx 2000 more units at the higher price than the tariff said (the
tariff has consistently quoted 4572 per annum).
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
> They've been doing the sculpting for years. The problem arises because
> they changed the sculpting from an annual cycle, to a flat line, for
> about six months starting approx April 07. It's a (different) annual
> cycle again now.
>
> The issue arises because in the cyclical environment(s) the summer has a
> very low number of units charged at the higher rate, whereas last summer
> they switched to charging 1/12 of the annual rate per month. As a result
> customers whose accounts include that period ended up paying up to
> approx 2000 more units at the higher price than the tariff said (the
> tariff has consistently quoted 4572 per annum).
Thanks. Basically I was wondering how far back to check my bills
(having just more or less finished one dispute with Npower).
(Oh, and Companies House should refuse to register names that don't
start with a capital letter.)
Adam Funk
>> Also, do you have a postal address for Energywatch? (Their website
>> provides only a web-form for complaints, but I'm sure they used to
>> take them in writing.)
>
> archive.org is your friend here, but it might be worth confirming via
> phone that the offices are still open :-)
...
> energywatch North West
> Boulton House
> Chorlton Street
> Manchester
> M1 3HY
That one is "bouncing" mail (the treeware kind).
Colin Wilson
> > phone that the offices are still open :-)
> > Boulton House
> > Chorlton Street
> > Manchester
> > M1 3HY
> That one is "bouncing" mail (the treeware kind).
I did suggest checking via phone first :-}
I'll see when one of my colleagues is in work next - we deal with them
regularly, so i'll have a letter or two to check for contact details.