EDF now have an advertising campaign in which the strap line is “rewarding you for using less.” This is a very interesting concept in view of the way they treated me. I used less electricity (because I left my house vacant) and they rewarded me by charging me for a complete trip round the meter, which incidentally costs about £13,000!
I moved to a rented house in another part of the country and left my house in Bolton empty because of a change of job. As it happens, just before I moved I changed gas and electricity provider. This is something we should all do periodically in our free market economy of energy supply. I this case, it was a coincidence that I made the change just before moving out of the property. But the consequences were very interesting:
On 2nd January 2007 EDF Energy claimed £13,367 from my bank account. This was done under a Direct Debit arrangement. In the event, my bank honoured the payment, but informed me by letter: “We’ve made all the payments that you arranged to come out of your account this morning. Unfortunately, because there was not enough money in your account to cover them, this means your account is now over your overdraft limit.” A slight understatement!
EDF Energy customer services were phoned immediately on receiving the letter. They told me that obviously an error had been made, but that it would take weeks to refund the money as it would need to be approved by a series of managers. When I asked why a similar procedure was not in place when claiming large amounts from domestic customers, they declined to comment (the line went silent).
After discussion with my bank, I requested that the money be claimed back under the indemnity insurance for direct debits. Interestingly my bank did not tell me that this was possible when I phoned them initially. Until that could be arranged I had to transfer some of my savings into my current account, so that I could continue to operate my bank account. The bank charged me £30 for dealing with exceeding my overdraft limit plus some interest charges.
Having looked into this further, I find that this has occurred as a result of a series of mistakes or poor practice made by EDF Energy, Atlantic Electric and Gas (my previous supplier) and possibly a meter reader contracted by EDF Energy. These three organisations each played a part. Further investigation reveals further alarming practices by both EDF Energy and Atlantic Electric and Gas.
My findings are as follows:
1. EDF Energy failed to put in place any system to check a claim for payment against a domestic customer that was clearly ridiculous.
2. EDF Energy also failed to present me with an invoice for this claim for payment. Interestingly, this was a final payment arising from us moving out of the property with tenants moving in on 1st December 2006. Final meter readings were phoned through for both electricity and gas at the same time. We received a final invoice for the gas, which we settled by cheque, but no invoice for the electricity has arrived. The first we knew about it was when my bank contacted me.
3. A meter reading made on 25 November 2006 by a contractor was incorrect for both the daytime and night-time meters. Either this or EDF Energy deliberately changed the readings.
4. Atlantic Electric and Gas, who were my supplier until 12th March 2006 provided EDF Energy with estimated meter readings that were artificially high and presented these as actual readings. This enabled them to claim more money than they were due, at a time when they knew that they were loosing the account to EDF Energy. To me, this looks to me like sharp practice.
5. EDF Energy increased their prices just one day after I transferred to them as a supplier. Clearly I changed supplier in order to achieve the best possible price. This again looks suspicious to me. Did all their customers have increased pricing on 13th March 2006?
6. Atlantic Electric and Gas produced a series of inaccurate meter readings for my night meter. This simply suggests incompetence to me.
The commentary and controversy about Rowan Williams’ recent foundation lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice entitled “Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective” seems to be generated by people who neither heard the lecture nor took the trouble to read the transcript. Here is my attempt to translate - from Dr William’s regrettably difficult turn of phrase – the last three paragraphs (my apologies, Dr Williams, if I have mistranslated):
The concept of human rights now dominates the thinking behind the laws of many countries, including Britain. However, we must remember that our laws stem from our historical context of religion and culture. With respect to certain “aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution” there is room to reconcile Islamic law (Sharia) with UK law. This may be achieved by parallel systems, as is currently the case with the Beth Din, a Jewish court which mediates on a range of disputes within the orthodox community. If we wish to reconcile the particular religious beliefs of minority groups within our society with our current laws, both sides must be prepared to work at this (“transformative accommodation”). The legal systems stemming from particular religions must be careful not to alienate their followers by being “inflexible or over-restrictive” and the secular legal system may need to find creative ways to prevent “ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority.” In running parallel systems, one religious and one secular, however, it is “unavoidable” that people will have to make choices between the two.
What is so wrong with what Rowan Williams has said? I suggest that the reaction that has ensued betrays a deep prejudice and bigotry. Dr William’s legacy may turn out to be as precipitator of a turning point in cultural reconciliation. Sorry, to translate: we may one day be thankful for what Rowan has said, because when we have worked out what he meant, it will help the world become a better place.