Some questions about PDVs and PPMs ...

[MikeBigg]

I have a few questions about pre-disconnection visits (PDVs) and pre-payment meters (PPMs) ...

1) When a customer has some debts, What rights do the energy companies have to insist that a pre-payment meter is fitted?

I know this goes to court and a warrant can be issued, but is there a defence that can be given at this point.

2) If the customer offers to clear the amount outstanding in, say, 6 months, can the energy company still insist on a PPM?

3)It is said that the reason the energy companies charge more energy supplied through PPMs because it costs more to
collect the money that way, but do they make more profit from PPMs?

Is there an online resource that can help with this?

Thanks,

Mike

[buzby]

It's their supply, so the metering aspect is within their remit - so if they insist, there's not much you can do as it is either that, or the supply is removed (usual caveats regarding vulnerable consumers apply). Are you referring to a Warrant of Entry or for payment of debt? For the former, they can apply to a JP to seek entry, with no need for a formal court date. This is part of the Electricity Acts.

How the power company deals with their consumers depends on local policy, but a PPM installation is their right as a supplier. I'm unaware of any power company that splits out the costs of PPM for scrutiny, but I do know these meters can cost up to 10 times that of a standard credit meter due to the additional functionality required, plus the various back-office systems to allow the crediting for usage and disbursements of monies already overdue.

[Bigmac versus]

Yes as buzby says they can insist upon a PPM being fitted where an amount of money is overdue, when you owe money to them its near impossible to change suppliers also which is not good if their prices are at the higher end of the scale.

[MikeBigg]

Hmm. Thanks.

Just to add some context to the question -- I do pre-disconnection visits. I'm starting to see an increase in the push to have PPMs fitted, something which I don't think is always beneficial to the customer.

A case in point -- recently I called on someone who owed £300. The energy company wanted half to be paid during my visit via a card and the rest of the debt to be paid off over 4 months.

This was not possible for the customer, but they offered £100 by the end of the week and the balance to be paid off over 6 months.

The energy company rejected what I thought was a reasonable offer saying they would pursue a warrant of entry to have a PPM fitted.

So, are there any defences that a consumer has against the energy companies in circumstances like this?

Thanks,

Mike

[Bigmac versus]

Not much then Mike, good input.

[buzby]

As Bigmac suggests - it does';t provide any scope, as it is their ball (meter) and they are at liberty to to decide what policies they put in place in the event of non-compliance when it comes to non-payment of accounts. I've noticed firms are becoming increasingly hard nosed in these matters, but then, they can take the same approach that our dear government's HMRC. Pay their bills late, and there are penalties and interest and additional horrors, which begs the question why should commercial firms treat their customers with any more understanding and respect than the Government does? (Rhetorical).

[noggsy]

Just a couple of points raised. My understanding is that to gain a Warrant of Entry a Human Rights letter must be sent to the address concerned before a Warrant is granted - of which a dated copy is provided with the Warrant paperwork submitted to the courts and insisted upon by the Clerk of the Court. Secondly it is now standard practice by one of the Electricity suppliers to install PPMs to domestic properties where there is a debt, there is an outside meter and there are no obvious signs of vunerablity on an initial PDV visit, providing the person carrying out the visit is qualified.

[nottslad]

It depends entirely on the histry of the account, given the example Mike gave, I would expect that the customer with that account had failed severl arrangements in the past, hence why a PPM was insisted.

At the end of the day, you wouldn't take a loaf of bread from Asda without paying, so why is it ok to use electricity without paying for it? (Loved saying that to a customer one day)

[ATD]

Originally Posted by nottslad

It depends entirely on the histry of the account, given the example Mike gave, I would expect that the customer with that account had failed severl arrangements in the past, hence why a PPM was insisted.

That's all well and good if the payment arrangements had realistically reflected the customers circumstances. Yes we all know that there are customers who just "will not" pay, but there are also those who "can not" pay what the supplier initially demands - but out of fear of disconnection agree to it.

Call the debt recovery contact centre for your energy supplier (ok, they may not all be like this ), and the person you get to speak to has been tasked to collect as much money as possible in the shortest space of time. There is very little room for realism in the "conversation"

[nottslad]

having a ppm installed enables you to keep in control of your debt and pay your debt at a lower rate over a longer period of time. It is usually the best option

[noggsy]

Hey Nottslad, guess you work at E-on then

[Bigmac versus]

Originally Posted by noggsy

Hey Nottslad, guess you work at E-on then

Well regardless this is better than disconnection surely and is a genuine way of paying back a large sum, not ideal I admit but one that does help.

[MikeBigg]

I had another one recently.

The customer offer to pay usage + the owed amount spread over 6 months.

The energy company wanted the owed amount paid back over 4 months.

So, no "half now" payment demanded!

Yet the amounts outstanding were broadly similar.

Who makes these rules? What guidelines are given by the regulators? I there are no guidelines, why not?!

Nottslad - I would agree that it would usually be the best option IF the energy companies weren't charging more for the energy through PPMs and if it was made easy and cheap to revert back to a credit type meter.

There was a guy on the radio earlier in the week (from Energy watch I think) who made an interesting comment - The energy companies are not allowed to cut people off if there are vulnerable people living in the property. The guy on the radio made the point that many people with PPMs are cutting themselves off every week because they are unable to top up their meters.

So, vulnerable people end up going without energy! This is not acceptable.

I have no proof, but I suspect the energy companies are make more profit per energy unit with PPMs, but the they won't reveal the numbers. This is what fuels my suspicion. Surely it is time for someone in authority to take this industry by the scruff of the neck and make it do the right thing.

Mike