EHU Supplier Liaison Meeting 18th January 2017 Natasha Gilmour, Monica Davidson, Angus McMillan

EHU case volumes Quarter 3: Oct - Dec 2016 33% of complaints were priorities (26% prev. quarter), in December this increased to 40%. (complaint numbers decreased by almost 20% but proportion of these that are priorities increased, priority cases very similar in November and December). November highest level of priorities since Feb 2015. 90% of complaints were domestic (above includes domestic and non domestic) 2405 cases logged during this quarter: +2% (62 cases) from previous quarter -5% the same period 2015/2016

EHU Geographical Split: Q3 2016 England -2% Scotland -1% Wales -1%

EHU Volumes: 2015 - 2016 England 7,243 6,848 14,091 ↓5% 2015 2016 England 7,243 6,848 14,091 ↓5% Scotland 1,075 1,018 2,093 ↓5% Wales 528 511 1,039 ↓3% Total 8,881 8,396 17,277 ↓5%

Referral From: Q3 2016 complaints No major changes - CACH ↓1%, EO ↑2%. Should we be expecting higher % of referrals from EO? A slightly higher proportion of consumers across England reached the EHU via CACH, than Wales 2% less with almost 7% less in Scotland ( this was 16% less last quarter, so more similarity this less differentials this quarter). Nothing to highlight; very slight differences in referrals from Bureaux’s, Housing Associations and direct from consumers are higher. Higher % of consumers from SC from EO and Direct from consumer, but again only couple of % difference

High Level Domestic Codes: Q3 2016 From previous quarter as proportion of complaints Billing, ↓ 6% Debt & Disconnection, ↓1% (similar) PPM ↑ 8% Metering ↓ 2% (smart meters 2 so might be the same) Transfers: same Difference in numbers: Billing - ↓ 13% Debt ↑ 2% Metering ↓4% PPM ↑111% Transfers 8% Against previous quarter in numbers: Number of Billing complaints up by 10% Debt and disconnection up by 16% Metering up by 38% PPM up by 54% Transfers - same

Top 6 complaint codes across regions Q3 England Scotland Wales PPM self disconnection (unable to credit meter) 8.29% Meter provision or exchange 9.74% 11.72% Disputed bill, customer not responsible 7.89% 7.12% 7.59% Debt recovery practices 7.09% Catch up bill received 6.74% 6.90% 6.11% 5.24% Supply point administration query (MPRN / MPR) 5.49% Miscellaneous and failures in service 5.52% 5.26% Unable to credit PPM (faulty meter/payment device) 4.87% We had a look at historical complaint codes on PPM self disconnection specifically in Scotland it popped in and out of top 5 going back to 2014.

EHU Performance: Q3 2016 We brought back the question about whether the opinion of supplier changes once EHU had been involved…

Opinion of supplier: tracker Q21. Has your opinion of your energy supplier changed after the EHU’s involvement in your case? Q2 Autumn Report Cases closed: Aug ’16– Oct ’16 Base: all respondents (240)

Overview of tracker findings No change Satisfaction with handover (Q11) Staff understanding of problem (Q13) Improved Overall satisfaction with quality of service: KPI (Q19) Consumers feeling like they were kept informed (Q16) Satisfaction with outcome (Q17) Made a difference (Q20a) Opinion of supplier (Q21) Declined Manner of staff: any positive comments (Q14) Satisfaction with length of time to deal with problem (Q15) Q2 Autumn Report Cases closed: Aug ’16– Oct ’16 All changes in results since the last quarter are not statistically significant

Resources and operational update Training Mindfulness training Vulnerability training Supporting Consumer Service with major change Communication Improved communication between Team Managers and Stakeholder Liaison Officers Sharepoint live mid February Creation of EHU website Disputes process Discretionary credit update staffing changes to report Communication ongoing drive – deal wit hhigh level of stakeholders and model works perfectly when no ones on leave/sick/,meetings CS – training new staff on who to identify as vulnerable/initiate relationships and using ATA for checking case referrals or more compex issues on an ongoing basis. f

Advice & Stakeholder Team 8 face to face meetings 23 conference calls 16 stakeholder meetings/ events (Ofgem, Energy UK, OS:E, Cita, CAS)

Advice & Stakeholder Team: Issues discussed with suppliers Performance on complaints Revenue protection – getting the right info Backbilling The escalation process Meter appointments Self-disconnection discretionary credits Marketing complaints

Priority update Priorities are up for second consecutive quarter from 513 to 650 (↑27%) 591 domestic (↑31%) and 59 business (↓3%) 9% business and 91% domestic (12% vs. 88% last quarter) Of the total domestic priorities 33% were PPM self disconnection, ↓1% from last quarter. Majority of domestic priorities still prepayment (79% of cases)  

Domestic priorities

Non-domestic priorities

Metering update As a percentage of total cases down from 19% Q2 to 17% Q3 (463 to 427) Domestic vs. non-domestic split same both quarters at 90% and 10% Meter provision/ exchange still top code 37% of all cases (↑9%) RPU cases down from 13% in Q2 to 12% this Q3

Domestic metering codes

Non-domestic metering codes

ME.5 – Supply point administration query (MPRN / MPR) Ecoes / xoserve showing incorrect details (meters, addresses etc) Supplies not properly registered (new builds) Meter mix-ups Meter changes not updated Shipperless properties Delays in suppliers taking the necessary action to update the databases after being notified of the problem

Engineer availability: case study 1 Consumer advised she had been off supply since that morning. An engineer visited the property but only confirmed that the meter was broken and needed replaced. No timescales provided for resolution She had three children, all under 16 years old. They were cold and needed the gas to cook We called the supplier who said that Lowri Beck’s systems were down and they couldn’t see if another job had been allocated. The Caseworker checked again at 4pm and was told that systems were back up, but there was a back log and an appointment time couldn’t be provided

Engineer availability: case study 1 Early the next morning the Caseworker checked if the appointment had gone ahead. The consumer had received a call from Lowri Beck at 9pm to say that they would not be attending. We contacted the supplier again who said that Lowri Beck had told them they still couldn’t give an appointment time as they had a back log of over 100 jobs “in the same situation” By mid-afternoon there still hadn’t been any progress and we escalated the case, asking that they consider using another MOP or offer to put the consumer up in alternative accommodation. As an appointment still couldn’t be arranged the consumer was offered alternative accommodation, which she declined as she felt it was not practical for her or her children. The appointment eventually went ahead at about 8.30pm on the 1st December, the second day of being off supply. The supplier paid Guaranteed Standards and GW totalling £100

Missed appointments: case study 2 Case referred to the EHU by the Ombudsman on 14th October 2016. The consumer had already had no gas for two days. The consumer had two children aged 11 and 9, with the youngest suffering from asthma The consumer’s meter needed to be moved due to alterations at the property. The consumer had coordinated this with National Grid and the supplier and was assured that he would not be off supply for a significant period of time An appointment was made through his supplier for the meter operator to attend on the 12th October when the National Grid work was being carried out, but on the day the Amey engineer turned up with the wrong meter and couldn’t complete the job.

Missed appointments: case study 2 The consumer contacted his supplier and was told that an emergency appointment would be arranged for the next morning However at 4pm that day no one had turned up. He called again and was advised that an emergency appointment had been booked but had been “rejected”. The supplier also said that Amey did not cover his area and they could not confirm when an appointment could be arranged to reinstall his meter In the end there were 3 missed appointments to fit the meter and customer was off supply for 8 days. During this time he advised that his daughter’s asthma worsened, no heater was provided. £100 goodwill was offered and increased to £170 after negotiation, in addition to Guaranteed Standards payments of £330

More missed appointments: case study 3 The consumer had been trying to get her meter fixed since September 2015. The meter had a blank screen and she was being billed on estimates as a result. The supplier had already missed several appointments when the case was referred to us and the customer had taken days off work for these A job was arranged for the day after we sent the complaint to the supplier – unfortunately the supplier had not communicated this to the customer and she was not there to provide access A further job was arranged for the 12th October, however on that morning the supplier advised that it would not go ahead as there were no resources available. By this point the customer had already taken another day off work and didn’t see the e-mail advising of this until later that day – making her very annoyed

More missed appointments: case study 3 The supplier arranged another job for the 27th of October but the customer was not prepared to take another day off work – she was angry that the supplier continued to offer the same solution which had failed repeatedly. The supplier then deadlocked the complaint The consumer broke off contact with the Extra Help Unit after stating that she would take the matter up with the Ombudsman Service: Energy or seek legal advice We flagged the matter up to escalated contacts within the supplier to highlight the consequences of repeated failures, to question deadlocking and to explore alternative arrangements for customers in those situations