Monica Davidson Acting Head EHU EHU Update: January 2016 Monica Davidson Acting Head EHU

EHU Update Overview of stats, performance and resources Observations on the use of deadlock EHU case studies on deadlocks and Fuel Direct

EHU Volumes Oct – Dec 15 There were 2,523 contacts logged by the EHU during the last quarter. Up 171 contacts from the last quarter. Casework volumes were 13% lower than they were for the same period last year

EHU volumes: monthly

EHU Volumes: 2014 & 2015

EHU Geographical Split England +3% Scotland -1% Wales - 2%

EHU High Level Codes Oct to Dec Change from last quarter Billing – 0.5% Debt + 26% Meter – 7% Pre-payment meters +146% Transfers – 7%

EHU Performance Cases closed in 35 working days +3% from last quarter

EHU Team Fully resourced for the first time since transferring to CAS. Gaps were created following mat leave but also uplift in volumes meant that we needed more resources Funded to have 16.8 caseworkers in post; we have 17.8 currently in post (including 2 industry secondments) 9 of our 14 FT caseworkers have been here less than twelve months and need varying levels of ongoing coaching/ support Currently 34 people in the EHU (including 2 on mat leave)

EHU Themes Increased Priorities in January, predominately self-disconnection Concerns about deadlocking Increased engagement with independent suppliers; both on operational performance and initial engagement/ introductions

Suzi Cassie Supplier Liaison Meeting 27 January 2016 EHU Case Studies Suzi Cassie Supplier Liaison Meeting 27 January 2016

Case study 1 The consumer was vulnerable with asthma and his wife had a brain tumour. Old storage heating at the property had been replaced with a new heating system – the electrician advised the old Economy 7 meter needed replaced with a single rate meter. The heating was not working because of this. The consumer requested a single rate meter from the supplier however, they seemed to advise the electrician would need to complete further work first. The matter was deadlocked at that stage and the consumer contacted the EHU. The matter was escalated within the EHU & discussed at a scheduled conference call. A response was issued by the supplier two days later stating they had offered to book an appointment when the consumer contacted them however, he had been unwilling to wait 7 days for an appointment. The supplier had been unwilling to book an emergency appointment as the consumer was not ‘off supply’ in terms of a mains disconnection. The supplier had suggested at the time the consumer could have asked the electrician to rewire the heaters to resolve the problem immediately if needed.

Case Study 1 - continued The EHU highlighted that a vulnerable consumer was left with no heating and more could have been done - for example the meter exchange appointment booked then brought forward if possible. The supplier did then book an emergency appointment and the meter was exchanged. Their metering department ‘declined an emergency appointment on the grounds that this should have been arranged before the heating was installed and so would only agree initially to an appointment in 10 day timescales’. There was no real explanation as to why the case was deadlocked. A goodwill gesture of £100 was offered. The supplier agreed they should have booked an emergency appointment to resolve the matter on first contact from the consumer. The consumers were left without heating for one week until EHU intervention.

Case Study 2 The consumer was registered disabled and had problems with her memory. She received Employment & Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance. She had moved house and arranged with her supplier to continue paying by Fuel Direct. Prepayment meters were in situ & exchanged to credit meters to accommodate Fuel Direct. A balance accrued of £300 however, Fuel Direct deductions also appeared to be in place. On querying this she was given conflicting information from the supplier – she was initially told only one supply had transferred then that one fuel was still on a prepayment tariff. The supplier had offered a goodwill gesture of £45 however, the consumer felt the issue had not been corrected. On querying it further she was told the matter was deadlocked. Threats of warrant action were then issued and the consumer contacted the EHU. It transpired the Fuel Direct application had been successful for electricity but not for gas because the debt was still below the required threshold.

Case study 2 – continued A subsequent application had been made for the gas but the supplier stated no response had been received from the local council or DWP. The supplier reported that the council had changed offices and that the postcode areas they were responsible for had changed so the application had ‘fallen through the net’. The supplier agreed there had been a service failure for not chasing up the Fuel Direct application. A new application was started and a hold placed on the account pending this. An increased goodwill gesture of £75 was also offered. The supplier stated the consumer could still use the original deadlock letter to go to the EO if still unhappy. No further deadlock letter was issued confirming the increased goodwill offer.

Case study 3 The consumer was vulnerable with a heart problem and had a 15 year old daughter. They had moved out of the property temporarily due to a fire – she had informed her supplier of this at the time. After she moved back in she did not receive a bill, despite chasing the supplier by phone and letter. A bill was later issued for over £3000 and a payment plan was set up by direct debit however, shortly after the direct debit payments doubled without notification which was unaffordable. She had received a demand for payment and threats of warrant action and was referred to the EHU. When the EHU contacted the supplier, it transpired the consumer’s account had been closed in error when she had only been away from the property for 2 months and part of the balance was historical.

Case study 3 - continued It was agreed in principle that a payment plan would be set up for usage only pending an application to the suppliers’ trust fund. However, the supplier stated the figures must be agreed that day by the consumer or else the complaint would be deadlocked. The EHU was unable to reach the consumer regarding the payment plan The matter was escalated within the Extra Help Unit to request more time from the supplier to allow contact with the consumer. This was agreed to. The complaint was later closed due to no contact with the consumer however, was not deadlocked. It was agreed the payment plan would still be set up should the consumer go back to them.

Case study 4 The consumer was vulnerable due to mental health issues. He received Employment & Support Allowance and Personal Independence Payment. He had £5 credit on his prepayment meter and was referred to the Extra Help Unit as a self-disconnection as he had no funds to top up and was not due to receive income for a further 2 days. It transpired the consumer had the PPM installed under warrant approx 3 weeks previously. The consumer informed us he had an application in for Fuel Direct at the time of the warrant and that the supplier was aware of this. It was a concern that the supplier proceeded with the warrant regardless.

Case study 4 - continued The supplier explained they had attempted to agree a payment plan requesting an income /expenditure form and had informed him of options including Fuel Direct. The supplier confirmed the consumer contacted them on 9 November to ask if they would stop the action if he set up Fuel Direct and they confirmed yes. There was legal action due to be carried out on 23 November. The supplier stated they checked if any Fuel Direct payments had been received on 30 November however, found no evidence of this so they proceeded with the warrant action on that date. It is unclear what checks were carried out, for example whether the supplier contacted the DWP or just checked the account for payments. Could the supplier have been more proactive in setting up Fuel Direct given the vulnerability? The supplier stated if evidence was provided confirming Fuel Direct had been set up they would review the actions taken.