Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Business
Nils Pratley

Ofgem’s voluntary code on prepayment meters seems a bit of a mess

elderly woman using a prepayment meter
You have to be aged 85 or over and living alone, or be extremely incapacitated or severely or terminally ill, to be in the ‘high risk’ category that Ofgem says should never have a meter installed forcibly. Photograph: Libby Welch/Alamy

A voluntary code on involuntary installations sounds like a muddle. That impression is reinforced when reading the detail of Ofgem’s attempt to put a stop to some energy suppliers’ thuggish approach to fitting prepayment meters.

You have to be aged 85 or over and living alone, or be extremely incapacitated or severely or terminally ill, to be in the “high risk” category that Ofgem says should never have a meter installed forcibly. Why set the age cut-off as high as 85? There was no explanation.

Meanwhile, the “medium risk” category, for which the new code of practice prescribes “further assessment required by suppliers on a case-by-case basis” – not an outright ban, in other words – includes medical conditions that would strike most people as severe, or probably potentially so. Try Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, learning difficulties and respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

How will assessments of such “medium risk” indebted customers be made in practice? Will British Gas et al be expected to recruit medical specialists to judge whether an 84-year-old with Alzheimer’s, say, could be harmed if he or she is unable to top up the unwanted new meter for whatever reason? Strange as it sounds, the regulator seems to imagine something along those lines. The code says welfare officers must be present or contactable in what Ofgem calls “edge” cases.

It would surely be simpler and fairer to impose a simple ban on forced installations, and remote switching of smart meters, for disabled people, as urged by the disability equality charity Scope.

The suppliers, or some of them (Ofgem is still investigating), are the primary villains, we shouldn’t forget, but the current mess is partly of the regulator’s making because it was blind to abuses until a Times investigation served up the evidence in February. An alert regulator would have heeded the warnings last summer from Citizens Advice and others that tougher safeguards were needed when the number of forced installations started to surge. Even under the long-established rules, the forced installation of a meter was meant only to be a “last resort” mechanism.

That said, in three respects, one can sympathise with the regulator’s predicament in trying to cleanse the stables. First, the code of practice is only voluntary because Ofgem must run a statutory consultation before it can change suppliers’ operating licences. The legal hurdles should still be cleared in time for next winter.

Second, the law allows suppliers to try to recover debts, which means a regulator must allow for those rare cases where a customer is capable of paying but refuses. As the law stands, a blanket ban on involuntary switches was always going to be a non-starter.

Third, last year’s spike in forced installations (from 380,000 to 600,000, estimates Citizens Advice) was obviously caused by the surge in energy bills and magistrates’ willingness to sign off entry warrants in batches. A social tariff for energy, meaning a discounted rate for defined groups of vulnerable customers, would be the single reform most likely to lessen the angst around meters. Yet ministers have so far refused even to engage in the debate on a social tariff. They aren’t making Ofgem’s job easier.

The regulator has to cope with the hand it is dealt, of course. The new code is obviously an upgrade in terms of protections for customers, but much depends on whether officials have awoken from their slumbers and are ready to hunt down abuses actively. One critical element is how the new “precautionary principle” – an assumption that anybody facing an involuntary installation is likely to be financially vulnerable – is interpreted and policed in practice.

We are, though, in unfamiliar territory when bereavement is another of those “medium risk” characteristics that suppliers must assess. So energy companies will be making judgments about how long indebted customers should be given to mourn before a meter is installed? This is not going to be straightforward.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.