Writing up my experiences with E.ON and the feed-in tariff.

On 12th August it was the 3-month anniversary of the installation of our solar panels.  A day I had been looking forward to as it means we can submit our first quarterly feed-in tarriffs “invoice”.  The  process is that you can dial an 0845 number (no fear!) or submit by email; I did the latter.  An acknowledgement came the next day (Saturday):

Subject:     RE: FIT reading
Date:     Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:05:51 +0100
From:     RETUK Feed In Tariff Meter Readings <FitMeterReadings@eonenergy.com>
To:     ‘Andrew Wedmore’

Good Morning,

Thank you for your generation reading.

Your payment will be process in the next 30 days.

Regards,

Emma [name redacted]
Feed In Tariff Team
E.ON Energy Solutions
I: 7613679
E: +44 (0) 845 301 4884
E.ON UK
Caxton Road
Bedford MK41 0EW
——————————————————————–
So far, so good.

On 19th August I got the following email:
——————————————————————–

Subject:     FIT00038567 FIT Payment
Date:     Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:24:46 +0100
From:     RETUK Feed In Tariff Meter Readings <FitMeterReadings@eonenergy.com>
To:     ‘Andrew Wedmore’

Dear Mr Wedmore

Please find attached your generation and  export payment statement covering 05 May 2011 to 05 August  2011. Your payment will be made into your nominated bank account.

Your Sincerely

Emma [name redacted]
Feed In Tariff Team
E.ON Energy Solutions
I: 7613679
E: +44 (0) 845 301 4884
E.ON UK
Caxton Road
Bedford MK41 0EW

——————————————————————–
Very exciting.  Only problem was that the attached statement was completely wrong.  It had my name and address on it OK, and it had the meter reading that I had given them.  But it had completely the wrong previous meter reading (544 units, should have been 0) and (I learned a bit later) someone else’s account number.

It also awarded me an “export tarriff” of 3.1p per unit on a deemed 50% of our output, a payment to which we are not entitled, being off-grid.

Furthermore, the multiplication was wrong (it can’t be wrong, it was obviously out of a computer but it was).  I quote: “kWh generated: 379.  Generation Tariff rate: 43.3p.  We work out your Generation Payment by multiplying your Generation Tariff rate by the number of kWh generated [it actually says this right there in the statement].  Generation payment £116.35 ”  As the Americans say: “Do the math”.

I decided to phone (using http://www.saynoto0870.com/ to avoid the 0845 number).  Emma wasn’t there but I spoke to a colleague.  I quoted the account number on the statement and she said “Ah, Mr Smith”.  This was when I discovered that the account number on the statement was wrong, despite the name and address being correct.  At first I thought that perhaps I had quoted the wrong account number in my meter reading email, but no, on checking it I found that it was correct.

The data on the statement seemed to be a subtle blend of our data with Mr Smith’s data.  I pointed this out and was assured that this information would be passed on to Emma who would correct the statement.

But of course this was not the end of the story.  A second email arrived quite promptly the next working day.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject:     FIT00038567 FIT Payment
Date:     Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:43:18 +0100
From:     RETUK Feed In Tariff Meter Readings <FitMeterReadings@eonenergy.com>
To:     ‘Andrew Wedmore’

Good Morning Mr Wedmore,

I have received an email from one of my colleagues regarding the payment I processed.

I have double checked it and I apologise but I had put the incorrect unit price down. Please find the correct statement attached.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Emma [name redated]

————————————————–
The only slight problem, I see when I open the attachment, is that the “correct statement attached” is now actually more wrong than the previous statement.  The rate, which used to be correct at 43.3p, has now been reduced to 30.7p.  This makes the multiplication correct, but all the previously incorrect data is unchanged. And of course wrong times wrong is wrong (generally speaking).

Hardly had I had time to digest this, than a third, unsolicited, email arrives.

Subject:     FW: FIT00038574 FIT Payment
Date:     Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:53:49 +0100
From:     RETUK Feed In Tariff Meter Readings <FitMeterReadings@eonenergy.com>
To:     ‘Andrew Wedmore’

Good Morning,

I do apologise about this, Please find the correct statement again with the correct FIT account Id on it.

Again if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Emma [name redacted]

————————————————–

This attachment still has all the wrong monetary amounts but she has corrected the account number!

Time for another phone call.

Emma seems very puzzled, and unsure what to do next.  “Well” I say, “The thing is, I’ve had three wrong statements now, and I’m beginning to lose confidence.  Can I speak to someone else about it?

“Someone else” is the supervisor, Selina.  She has a crisp competence in her voice, and I believe her when she tells me she has figured out the real problem, and explains it to me.  Their system is spreadsheet-based.  It works off a number of spreadsheets and their process is based on each customer being on the same line on each spreadsheet.  Unfortunately the lines have somehow slipped by one, so that I am on line 90 of one spreadsheet and line 91 of another one.  Hence the blending of my data with Mr Smith’s – it all makes sense now.

So basically, E.ON are running a manual system with a bit of help from Microsoft Excel.  What a kludge!  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the spreadsheets live on Emma’s C drive.  On the C drive of Emma’s laptop, in fact, which she then leaves on a train….but I am drifting off into fantasy.  I ought to have been suspicious when I learned that their data collection process was for you to send them a free-format email (rather than fill in a web form, say).  It’s a familiar IT story – presenting a competent face externally, all lash-up internally.

If you have a free choice, don’t select E.ON as your FIT supplier.  Go elsewhere.

The correct statement arrived promptly, showing that we have earned £399.66.  This is compared to Emma’s three efforts each showing £122.23 payable.

The payment itself is somewhat less than I had originally hoped, bearing in mind that it relates to the three sunniest months of the year.  The reason is that our PV system has spent too much of the time effectively turned off, due to the problems with the Load Controller system, described in an earlier entry.  In fact the main problem wasn’t with the Load Controller itself, but rather that we had the wrong kind of solar inverter.  This problem has now been fixed (by changing to a different manufacturer/model), and so I expect that in the comparable period next year we will generate quite a lot more electricity.  I may blog about why the original solar inverter was wrong in a separate entry.