Customer Care Team Annual Report 2015

Transcription

1 Customer Care Team Annual Report 2015

2 To: Mr. Denis Naughten, T.D. Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources Mr. Simon Coveney, T.D. Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government In accordance with the requirements set out in S.I. 463 of 2011, the CER is pleased to present its seventh report on the number and type of complaints received from customers, their resolution and the service levels provided by electricity and gas suppliers for the period 1 st January 2015 to 31 st December Likewise, in accordance with the requirements contained in Section 13 of the Water Services Act 2014, the CER is pleased to submit its report to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government on the dispute resolution service provided for customers of Irish Water over the same period. The CER s Customer Care Team (CCT) acts as a vital source of information for customers and oversees disputes from electricity, gas and water customers. The CER is pleased to present a combined annual report on the CCT s activities for the year Some key highlights from the report are as follows: 1) In 2015 there were 3884 customer contacts logged by CCT team, a decrease of 30% from the total number of contacts logged in ) There were 359 complex complaints logged by the CCT in 2015, a decrease of 17% compared to ) The CCT closed 373 complex energy complaints in Over 50% of these energy complaints were either upheld in favour of the customer, or the customer agreed to accept an early settlement offer. 4) In the first full year of its dispute resolution service for Irish Water customers, the CCT closed 16 complex water complaints; 25% of which were upheld in favour of the customer. 5) The issues and complaints logged by customers were similar in both the energy and water sector and mirrored complaints logged in previous years. Complaints mainly focused around billing and account issues, charges and metering problems. The decrease in both the number of customer contacts and customer complaints logged in 2015 is welcomed by the CER and reflects improved customer service levels provided by energy suppliers. The decrease in customer contacts and complaints also reflects the work of the CCT who have engaged with energy suppliers to promote best practice in terms of complaint handling and improving customer service. The CCT adds value to the CER s other functions by addressing individual customer s complaints. The figures in this report indicate that there is a continued demand for our dispute resolution services; both in the gas and electricity sector and increasingly for water customers. The CCT continues to work with all sections of the CER to highlight issues that emerge and works towards developing policies that improve competition and customer protection. The CCT will continue in the years ahead to assist customers who encounter difficulties while adapting and innovating to ensure best practice is maintained. We will also work towards ensuring that customers are aware of their right to bring a dispute to the CER. Garrett Blaney Chairperson 2

3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 THE ROLE OF THE CCT... 5 CUSTOMER CARE TEAM OVERALL PERFORMANCE... 6 Customer Contacts - Classification and Trends... 6 Complex Complaints... 8 CUSTOMER CARE TEAM ENERGY SECTOR ACTIVITY... 9 Complex Complaints and the Energy Sector... 9 Complaint Resolution Profiles - Energy Energy Complaints Outside the Scope of the CCT Root Cause of Complaints - Energy Market Share and Complex Complaints - Energy Market Share & Customer Contacts CUSTOMER CARE TEAM WATER SECTOR ACTIVITY Irish Water and the CCT Number and Type of Customer Contacts Received Water Complex Complaints and Complaint Resolution - Water Complaint Resolution Water CASE STUDIES - ENERGY CASE STUDIES WATER WHAT S NEXT IN 2016?

4 INTRODUCTION The Commission for Energy Regulation s (CER s) Customer Care Team (CCT) was established in 2006 as a dedicated unit providing complaint resolution and information services to natural gas and electricity customers in Ireland. Since its establishment, the CCT have strived to make information more freely available to customers and to assist customers who experience difficulties within the market. The key role of the CCT is in its provision of an independent complaints resolution service to customers with an unresolved dispute with their energy supplier or network operator. In addition, in 2014, the CER was appointed the independent economic regulator of water services in Ireland. The Water Services Act 2014 saw the expansion the CCT s dispute resolution service to also include customers of Irish Water. Summary of 2015 In 2015 there were 3884 customer contacts logged by CCT team, a decrease of 30% from the total number of customer contacts logged in supplier, what to do if disconnected, electricity/gas prices and queries regarding CER policy). Common complaints noted across both sectors included billing and account issues, metering problems and network charges, with 45% of complex complaints closed in 2015 (energy and water combined) upheld in favour of the customer. This report will outline the total number and type of contacts and complaints received by the team as a whole, as well as reviewing contacts and complaints received referring to the Energy sector and Water sector separately. The service levels provided by energy and water undertakings are also detailed and finally we include some case studies based on actual complaints received by the CCT in Vayu Flogas Graph 1. Total Customer Contacts (Closed) The majority of contacts in 2015 were return to supplier contacts with complex complaints amounting to 9% of total contacts received. There were 359 complex complaints logged by the CCT in 2015, a decrease of almost 17.5% from the number of complex complaints logged in The CCT has worked with suppliers to improve customer service levels and therefore, we welcome this reduction as a sign that their complaint handling continues to improve. The total number of contacts closed by the CCT was The breakdown of contacts closed by supplier/network operator/irish Water in 2015 is depicted in Graph 1 ( CER Specific refers to various requests for general information i.e. how to switch Pinergy GNI Energia ESBN PrePayPower Airtricity CER Specific Irish Water BGE Electric Ireland

5 THE ROLE OF THE CCT The CER is mandated to monitor energy suppliers service to their customers. In relation to the energy market, the Electricity and Natural Gas Supplier Handbook (CER/12/081) details what the suppliers and network operators are required to include in their Customer Charters and Codes of Practice. Suppliers are required to produce Codes of Practices which serve to provide minimum service guarantees to customers in each of the following areas: Marketing and Sign-up, Billing and Disconnection, Complaint Handling, Vulnerable Customers, Pay As You Go Metering and Budget Controllers. The Electricity and Natural Gas Supplier Handbook also details the requirements for suppliers and network operators when dealing with Non-household Customers. Likewise, the Irish Water Customer Handbook (CER/15/010) provides guidelines to Irish Water in terms of required levels of customer service and customer protection measures to be implemented in their business operations. The areas covered by the Codes of Practice for water customers are: Customer Communication, Billing, Vulnerable Domestic Customers, Networks Operations, Complaint Handling, and Terms and Conditions of Supply. The CCT upon investigation of customer complaints, consider relevant legislation as well as the guidelines outlined in both CER handbooks above. In terms of each complaint under CCT investigation; the team ensures the supplier/network operator/irish Water adhere to the service guarantees, Customer Charters and Codes of Practice and enforce outlined requirements. Suppliers and network operators will be informed of the minimum standards of expected service through decisions we take on complaints. The CCT also engage with these companies to highlight areas for improvement and to work with them to deliver better customer service and complaint handling. It is hoped that this will assist all parties to improve customer care services in an efficient manner. The CCT also play an important role in feeding into the CER s customer protection functions. The CCT work with other sections of the CER to utilise the important information gathered from customer contacts and complaints. The issues raised by customers aid with the development of consumer policy by the CER and assist in the development of the electricity, gas and water sectors. Ensuring customers are protected and provided with good service is a key role of the CER, especially when considering the monopolistic nature of network operators such as Gas Networks Ireland, ESB Networks and Irish Water. The energy network operators and Irish Water are considered to be natural monopolies whereby their services (gas, electricity, water) can most efficiently be supplied by a single company. As customers cannot switch between network operators, there must be adequate customer protection measures in place and a dispute resolution function for customers who experience difficulties. Although gas and electricity customers, if unhappy with their supply company, can switch to another company, it is equally important to monitor supplier s interaction with customers to ensure they are treated fairly, standards maintained and that best practice is applied. Remit and Legislation The remit and obligations of the CER regarding energy customers are set out in: Directive 2009/73/EC (Electricity) of the European Parliament and of the Council; Directive 2009/73/EC (Gas) of the European Parliament and of the Council; and S.I. 463 of 2011, transposed these directives. 5

6 The remit of the CER regarding water customers is primarily outlined in the following legislation: Water Services Act 2013; Water Services (No 2) Act 2013; and Water Services Act Responsibilities of the CCT The key responsibilities of the CCT are outlined below: Logging, investigating and responding to all complaints and queries from domestic and small/medium business customers; Providing domestic customers and small businesses with clear information relating to the energy and water sectors and informing them of their rights and obligations as consumers; Monitoring and updating the Customer Care section on the CER s website; Feeding into the development of the guidelines for Codes of Practice and Customer Charters; Providing input, advice and recommendations on customer related policy within the CER; Having in place clear and transparent processes for the investigation of complex complaints; Investigating complex complaints, issuing determinations and directions to suppliers, network operators and Irish Water. This may, include the payment of a refund or compensation, where appropriate; Engaging with suppliers, network operators and Irish Water to improve customer service levels and complaint handling processes CUSTOMER CARE TEAM OVERALL PERFORMANCE Customer Contacts - Classification and Trends The majority of work undertaken by the CCT involves the investigation of complex complaints. However, most customer contacts to the CCT do not translate into complex complaints that require a full investigation. The types of customer contacts received by the CCT are classified as follows: 1. Return to Supplier/Network Operator are contacts that are referred back to supplier s/network operators complaints handling process. This accounted for 78% of total contacts received in 2015 (accounted for 75% in 2014). See Graph Complex Complaints are complaints formally escalated to the CER and require a full investigation. Complex complaints represented 9% of total contacts received in 2015 (represented 8% in 2014). 3. Information Requests also represented 9% of the total contacts received in These contacts involve general queries and requests for information in relation to the function of energy or water markets (represented 15% in 2014). 4. Refer to Third Party are contacts that fall outside of the CER s remit, accounting for 2% of contacts received in 2015 (1% in 2014) 5. Standard Complaints are contacts in relation to CER policy or tariff decisions and represented 2% of CCT contacts in 2015 (1% in 2014) 6

7 Total Contacts Graph 2. Customer Contact Type 2015 Return to Supplier/Network 78% Standard Complaint 2% Complex Complaints 9% Information Request 9% Ref 3rd Party 2% Following a period of continued growth which commenced in 2008, total contacts to the CCT decreased in The total number of customer contacts received by the CCT in 2015 equated to 3884, which works out at an average of 324 contacts per month; a 30% reduction from monthly contacts received in This is primarily due to a significant reduction in the number of contacts received in relation to energy. The CCT has continued to engage with suppliers over the past number of years and we are aware that there has been a focus by suppliers on improving their customer service levels. Therefore, we welcome the reduction in contact levels as a sign that consumers are experiencing fewer difficulties. We will continue to work with suppliers and listen to consumers to ensure that there is a continued focus on customer service. Total contacts received, reduced in all three sectors, (Electricity, Gas and Water) compared with figures recorded in In terms of contact sources in 2015, approximately 50% of customer contacts were received by telephone, with the remainder of contacts received by written methods. The number of contacts arriving by has increased in recent years Graph 3. Total Customer Contacts Graph 4. Contact Source Phone, 48.66% , 33.37% Letter, 17.51% Other, 0.46% 7

8 Complex Complaints The CER has a statutory responsibility to provide a dispute and customer complaint resolution service to any final customer having an unresolved complaint with an energy undertaking or Irish Water. The CER also has an obligation to publish the procedures and details of the complaints service; a service which must be transparent, simple and inexpensive. Within the CER, it is the CCT that hold responsibility for this key independent dispute resolution function. The CCT, following complaint investigation, must issue its determination in writing, which may include the payment of a refund or compensation, which shall be proportionate. The CCT classify complaints that require a full investigation as Complex Complaints. Although Complex Complaints made up only 9% of customer contacts in 2015, they represent the majority of the work undertaken by the CCT each year. Complex complaints involve customers that have been unable to resolve their complaint with their supplier/network operator or Irish Water. Prior to the acceptance of a complex complaint, energy suppliers/network operators/irish Water need to confirm that their complaint handling process has been completed. Irish Water customers have an additional criterion to fulfil before the CCT can investigate their complaint; a customer must have been registered with Irish Water at the time the cause of the complaint occurred. Only when the above criteria have been met can the complaint be formally escalated to the CCT for a full investigation. operator/irish Water s complaint handling process. In terms of Irish Water complaints, the CCT also confirm that the customer has registered as customer with Irish Water. Once the above is confirmed, the CCT accept the complaint and log it as a complex complaint. Each complex complaint is thoroughly investigated, which requires gathering information from the suppliers/network operator/irish Water and the customer. This can include reviewing various correspondences and communications between the parties involved in the complaint such as bills, letters, call recordings, photographs, meter readings and any other information deemed relevant to the complaint. After examining the relevant information in each case, the CCT issue a proposed decision which is sent to the relevant parties for comment. The CCT reach a final decision after considering the different arguments provided by the parties in the form of comments to the proposed decision. In the final decision the CCT have the power to direct suppliers/network operators/irish Water to award compensation or to resolve a complaint in a particular fashion. Final decisions are not subject to appeal to the CER and are binding on the energy supplier/network operator/irish Water. However, customers are not obliged to accept the CCT findings, and may if they so wish refer the matter to another forum for investigation; for example the small claims court. The flowchart on the following page explains the Complex Complaint process within the CCT. In the initiation phase, the CCT first enquire whether the complaint has exhausted the supplier/network 8

9 No. of Complex Complaints The Complex Complaint Process within the CCT CUSTOMER CARE TEAM ENERGY SECTOR ACTIVITY Complex Complaints and the Energy Sector There were a total of 359 complex complaints logged by the CCT in 2015, 333 of which were received from energy customers. It is quickly clear from viewing Graph 5 below, that the number of complex complaints from energy customers has decreased from the levels seen between 2011 and As outlined above, the CCT work with energy suppliers in order to (a) improve customer service levels and (b) improve complaint handling processes. We have observed concerted efforts by suppliers to enhance both in recent years. The CCT welcomes the decrease in complaint volumes as a sign of improved processes and customer service levels within the energy market. The number of complaints per customer, as shown in Graph 14, indicate that SSE Airtricity and Bord Gáis Energy, in particular, have made significant improvements. This is reflected in the number of complex complaints being logged with the CCT against these suppliers. The CCT will continue to monitor the volume and trends in complex complaints carefully into Graph 5. Complex Complaints Logged (Energy)

10 No. of Complex Complaints Total Contacts Year One benefit resulting from the reduction in complex complaint volumes is that the CCT has been able to reduce complaint investigation/resolution times. Graph 6 below demonstrates that the CCT s average complaint investigation time has been decreasing since The CCT in 2015 had an SLA (Service Level Agreement) to resolve all complex complaints within 120 days. The average amount of complaints closed outside the SLA (120 days) in 2014 was 29%. This figure reduced to 12% in We hope to make further improvements in this area and in recognition of the important role that the CCT plays; the amount of resources dedicated to the team has been increased. At the end of 2015 the CCT consisted of 5 Full Time Employees, including a manager, two analysts and two officers. The CCT outsource the initial contact element of our workload in order to allow our staff to focus on investigating and resolving customer s complex complaints. Graph 7 again displays the number of complex complaints as noted in Graph 5; however this chart also depicts the overall number of energy contacts received by the CCT in recent years. Total energy contacts to the CCT decreased by almost 32% between 2014 and 2015 and the number of complex complaints decreased by 22.5%. Graph 6. Average Complaint Resolution Time Days Graph 7. Complex Complaints and Number of Contacts (Energy) Total Contacts Complex complaints 10

11 Complaint Resolution Profiles - Energy In the previous section we referred to energy complaints logged in We shall now focus on the energy complaints that were closed by the CCT in Each customer that contacts the CCT is allocated a CCT case reference number upon contact. This case number remains open on our system until such time as the complaint has been resolved. It is important for reporting purposes that we note the difference between logged and closed complaints - for example, the CCT may have logged a complaint in December 2015, but this complaint may not be closed/resolved until February In terms of complaint resolution and the energy sector, 46% of the 373 complex complaints closed during 2015 were Upheld in favour of the customer. Upheld complaints may include instruction to the network operator/supplier to award the customer proportionate compensation and or direction(s) to implement a certain course of action that the CCT feel would help resolve the customer s complaint. The number of upheld complaints in 2015 demonstrates a slight decrease from 2014 s figures; when 57% of complex complaints were upheld. However, it is important to note that 2015 saw the implementation of a new resolution classification; Settlement Offer Accepted. Settlement Offer Accepted is a new step in the complaints process and allows the supplier/network operator (having being made aware that the CCT is to commence a formal investigation) to come to the CCT with a settlement offer for the customer. It was anticipated by its implementation that this new step in the complaints process would see certain complaints settled in a more efficient manner for the customer. If a settlement offer is received from the supplier/network operator, the CCT forward this to the customer and allow the customer 10 working days to decide whether they wish to accept the settlement. If the customer accepts the settlement then the CCT will send a confirmation letter to all parties and the complaint is closed. If the customer rejects the settlement offer, then the CCT will proceed with the investigation. In 2015, 8% of Complex Complaints were closed by Settlement Offer. The percentage of complaints Not Upheld by the CCT in 2015 (41%) was at a very similar level to that in 2014 (40%). The resolution classification Other refers to complaints that were either reclassified as another type of contact, one-time contact issues, found to be outside the remit of the CER, or withdrawn by the customers before any decision was made by the CCT. Other complaints constituted 5% of complaint resolution profiles in Graph 8. Complaint Resolution 2015 Not Upheld 41% Upheld 46% Other 13% Settlement Offer Accepted 8% Other 5% 11

12 Energy Complaints Outside the Scope of the CCT There are certain complaints which cannot, for legislative reasons, be investigated by the CCT. Examples include where the complaint in question has previously been through the courts, where the complaint was made six years after the cause of the complaint occurred, or where the matter does not concern the function or objectives of the CCT. There were two energy complaints refused by the CCT in Both these complaints were declined due to the fact that the cause of the complaint occurred in excess of 6 years before the date the complaint was logged with the CCT. Root Cause of Complaints - Energy Electricity Suppliers In 2015, similar to 2014, the majority (76%) of complex complaints, made against electricity suppliers, were concerned with billing (65%) and account (11%) issues. Examples of billing and account issues include; inaccurate billing, incorrect account details, problems with level pay/budget plans, and large catch up bills following estimated readings. Complaints regarding disputed charges and tariffs made up approximately 19%, with the remaining 5% of complex complaints relating to switching supplier and other miscellaneous issues. Gas Suppliers In the gas market, similar to the electricity market, the majority (76%) of complex complaints from customers were with regard to billing issues (71%) and account problems (5%). Disputes regarding charges and tariffs equated to 23% of complaints while other miscellaneous complaints equated to 1% of complaints. Graph 9. Complex Complaints - Electricity Suppliers Charges & Tariffs 19% Switching 4% Other 1% Account Problems 11% Billing Issues 65% Graph 10. Complex Complaints - Gas Suppliers Charges & Tariffs 23% Other 1% Account Problems 5% Billing Issues 71% 12

13 Electricity Networks ESB Networks (ESBN) is responsible for the electricity distribution network. In terms of Electricity Networks, the greater part of complaints related to network charges (39%) while meter issues or metering complaints accounted for the second greatest proportion of complaints (22%). Examples of metering issues might include; a lack of meter readings and the effects thereof, incorrect/inconsistent meter readings, customers believing the meter itself to be faulty etc. Graph 11. Complex Complaints - ESB Networks Outages 17% Other 13% Network Charges 39% Other reoccurring complaints brought against ESBN were with regard to power outages (17%), connections (9%) with other issues of a varying nature forming the remaining 13% of complex complaints. Meter Issues 22% Connections 9% Gas Networks Complex Complaints made against the gas network provider, Gas Networks Ireland (GNI), centred mainly on meter issues (57%) and network charges (29%). The remaining 14% of complaints related to once-off issues of a varying nature Graph 12. Complex Complaints - Gas Networks Ireland Other 14% Charges 29% Meter Issues 57% 13

14 Market Share and Complex Complaints - Energy In 2015, there were ten active suppliers in the domestic and SME markets for the combined electricity and gas sectors. In the electricity sector, at the end of Q4 2015, Electric Ireland (59%), SSE Airtricity (SSEA) (16%) and Bord Gáis Energy (BGE) (14%) accounted for 89% of the market share (in terms of customer numbers). PrePayPower (PPP) and Energia accounted for approximately 5% each; Pinergy represented 1%, while all others represented less than 0.3% of the total market share. The market in this instance includes both the domestic and non-domestic (business) customers. In the gas sector, at the end of Q4 2015, BGE remained the major player with 51% of the market share in terms of customer numbers, followed by Electric Ireland (22%), SSE Airtricity (14%), Flogas (6%), Energia (6%) and others (less than 1%). Graph 13 contrasts the share of complex complaints closed in 2015 (inner circle) of the five major suppliers and their respective percentages of market share in 2015 (outer circle) in terms of customer numbers for the combined gas and electricity sectors. Graph 13. Combined Energy Sectors - Market Share and Complex Complaints Inner Circle = Complex Complaints Outer Circle = Market Share Electric Ireland 50% Electric Ireland 37% Energia 5% PPP 4% Other 3% Energia 2% PPP 2% Other 3% SSEA 15% SSEA 13% BGE 43% BGE 23% 14

15 Complex per 10,000 Contacts One might expect the largest player in the market to generate the largest proportion of complex complaints, however in 2015, the largest number of complex complaints made against an energy supplier, were made against BGE. Complaints against BGE, who as at December 2015 had a combined (electricity and gas) market share of 23%, constituted 43% of the complex complaints lodged against energy suppliers in However, as demonstrated in Graph 14 below, BGE have made significant improvements in the level of complaints received. We would look to see this trend continue into Electric Ireland, with 50% of the market share, had a 37% share of the total complex complaints, while SSE Airtricity had 15% of the market share and contributed to approximately 13% of complex complaints. It is also worth highlighting that SSE Airtricity halved the number of complaints per 10,000 customers between 2013 and To underline the variance between the largest suppliers (those supplying to more than 100,000 customers), Graph 14 depicts the number of complex complaints logged per 10,000 customers and split same by supplier. (Energia and PPP exceeded 100,000 customers for the first time in 2015; hence data for these two companies is not included for 2013/2014) Although, decreasing since 2013, BGE had the highest level of complex complaints at 1.97 per 10,000 customers. This is markedly contrasted with other large suppliers such as Electric Ireland s figure of 0.77 and SSE Airtricity s figure of 0.86 complex complaints raised per 10,000 customers Graph 14. Complex Complaints per 10,000 Customers (Energy Supplies) SSE Airtricity BGE Electric Ireland Energia PrePayPower Networks On the networks side, ESBN supplied electricity to a total of 2.2 million sites. Based on the number of complex complaints made against network operators and received by the CCT in 2015, for every 10,000 sites, 0.21 complex complaints were logged against ESBN. GNI supplied gas to almost seven hundred thousand sites which represented 0.30 complex complaints per 10,000 sites as observed in Graph

16 Complex per 10,000 Sites Graph 15. Complex Complaints per 10,000 Sites (Energy Network Operators) ESBN GNI Market Share & Customer Contacts Graph 16 below again looks at the five largest suppliers (in terms of customer numbers) in the energy sector, and compares their market share against the proportion of customer contacts that were logged (by the CCT) against them. The share of customer contacts for four of the five suppliers is broadly in line with their market share. The one outlier in this regard is PrePayPower, whose percentage of customer contacts is significantly higher than its market share. This variance raises concerns as to what issues customers are experiencing. The CCT will engage with PrePayPower in relation to this and work towards addressing any issues. The CCT note all the issues and concerns that are raised via customer contacts throughout the year, not just trends in complex complaints. The team recognise that not all contacts to the CCT transfer into complex complaints and take action on reoccurring issues that might negatively impact energy customers. 60% Graph 16. Combined Energy Sectors - Market Share and Customer Contacts 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%. 0% SSE Airtricity BGE Electric Ireland Energia PrePayPower Market Share 2015 Customer Contacts

17 No. of Contacts CUSTOMER CARE TEAM WATER SECTOR ACTIVITY Irish Water and the CCT The Water Services Act 2014 gave statutory responsibility to the CER to provide a complaints resolution service to Irish Water customers with an unresolved dispute with Irish Water; a development that was embraced by the CCT. This statutory responsibility mirrors the role the CER has in dispute resolution for electricity and natural gas customers. Customers who have registered with Irish Water and have an unresolved dispute with the utility can log a complaint with the CCT. Following investigation, the CCT has the power to direct Irish Water to pay compensation and/or resolve a complaint in a set fashion. The following requisites must be met before we can accept complaints from Irish Water customers: The customer must be a registered Irish Water customer in order to avail of our dispute resolution service, The customer must first have communicated the substance of their complaint to Irish Water in writing, The customer's complaint must have completed Irish Water's full complaints process and be in receipt of Irish Water s final decision (in writing). The public announcement of the launching of water charges saw a large number of customer contacts in the latter part of As can be seen from Graph 17, customer contacts received regarding Irish Water were relatively low in the first few months of 2015 and continued to be low up until the point that customers received their first water bills. The volume of complex complaints regarding Irish Water was lower than expected in 2015, and only 16 of the 627 Irish Water contacts closed in 2015 were complex complaints; however, we have seen an increase in complaint levels over time, which is as we would expect for a new utility. Large media coverage has had a significant influence over the type, volume and timing of information requests and complaints received by the CCT, however the team at all times continue to address queries and complaints in a timely and efficient manner. Graph 17. Irish Water Customer Contacts Received 2014 and

18 Number and Type of Customer Contacts Received Water There were 650 Irish Water contacts logged in 2015, a decrease of 19% from the number of Irish Water contacts logged in 2014 (803). The higher volume of contacts in 2014 can be attributed to the large number of queries following the public announcement on water charges and reflected customer requests for information regarding the functioning of the new utility. Irish Water contacts in 2015 equated to 17% of the overall contacts received by the CCT. Graph 18 details the type of Irish Water contacts dealt with by the CCT in The contacts received reflected the trends seen in the energy sector and were mainly with regard to account problems (22%) billing issues (13%) and charges (7%). The Water Services Act 2014 established an independent consumer consultative forum, to be known as the Public Water Forum. The CER was responsible for recruiting the members of the Public Water Forum. The primary purpose of the Forum, an independent body, is to represent the interests of the public and water consumers. The public water sector has undergone significant changes in recent times and will continue to do so over the coming years. The Public Water Forum is to be a vital component in terms of this development feeding directly into the activities and work of both Irish Water and the CER. Queries regarding the recruitment process and establishment of the Public Water Forum in the latter part of 2015 formed 10% of total customer contacts. A large number of contacts (22%) were instances where the CCT had to refer the customer back to Irish Water. This situation mainly occurs in instances where the customer has brought their complaint to the CER without first having completed Irish Water s complaints process. Water Meter issues (such as meter installation) and Leak/Flow problems, amounted to 6% of customer contacts each, while Water Quality and Connection issues amounted to 2% of contacts each. The remaining 10% or Other contacts related to issues of a diverse nature. Irish Water Contacts have decreased by 19% since 2014 Irish Water Contacts represented 17% of Total Contacts received by the CCT in

19 Graph 18. Breakdown of Water Contacts 2015 Connection Issues 2% Other 10% Water Quality 2% Public Water Forum 10% Charges 7% Leaks/Flow Issues 6% Meter Issues 6% Returned to Irish Water 22% Account Problems 22% Billing Issues 13% Complex Complaints and Complaint Resolution - Water Graph 19. Complex Complaints 2015 In 2015, there were 16 Irish Water complex complaints closed by the CCT. This constituted 4% of the total number of Complex Complaints closed by the CCT (389). One can observe from Graph 19 that the majority of complex complaints (59%) centred on meter issues. Most complaints regarding the metering centred on the installation of the actual water meter, i.e. a lack of notice surrounding meter installation and damage caused to private property following meter installation. Meter Issues (Installations etc.) 56% Other 6% Billing and Account Issues 13% Connections 6% Water Flow /Pressure Issues 19% Water and pressure flow equated to 19% of complex complaints, Billing and Account issues made up 13%, Connections amounted to 6%, and Other varied disputes accounted for the remaining 6% of complex complaints closed during

20 Complaint Resolution Water In terms of complaint resolution and the water sector, 25% of the 16 complex complaints closed during 2015 were Upheld in favour of the customer while 50% were Not Upheld. It is important to bear in mind again the small sample size; there we only 16 water complaints closed compared with 373 energy complaints. All four complaints which fall into the Other Category and constituted 25% of complex complaints closed in 2015, were found to be outside the remit of the CER/CCT and therefore could not be investigated. Three of these complaints were refused as the customers were not registered with Irish Water at the time to which their complaint related, while the forth complainant was found not to be a customer of Irish Water. Graph 20. Complaint Resoluton 2015 Other 25% Not Upheld 50% Upheld 25% None of the 16 complaints closed in 2015 were closed by Settlement Offer - this step in the resolution process was discussed earlier in this report when referring to resolution of energy complaints.. 20

21 CASE STUDIES - ENERGY Case No 1. Upheld Switched in error Complaint Case No 2. Landlord requesting refund - Complaint Not Upheld Without this customer s knowledge or approval, his/her electricity account was transferred from supplier X to supplier Y. The customer attempted to seek an explanation from supplier Y, the offending supplier, however the customers requests for information were ignored and the customer treated very poorly. The customer proceeded to log a formal complaint with the CCT. The CCT, on behalf of the customer, sought an explanation from supplier Y as to how this customer s supply could have been switched without the customer having instructed same. The CER also underlined the inadequate customer service provided. Supplier Y advised the CCT that another customer (customer b) had in error, upon signing up with supplier Y, supplied the MPRN (meter point reference number) belonging to the customer at centre of our investigation. This explained why the customer was switched in error however the CCT highlighted that suppliers are required to validate both the address and the MPRN when signing up a new customer. Had supplier Y verified the address of customer b, this situation would not have arisen. Supplier Y should have admitted their error and afforded the customer an explanation of events. Supplier Y should not have, on multiple occasions, over an extended period of time, ignored the customer s correspondence and requests for an explanation. This customer referred a case to the CCT requesting that his/her gas supplier issue a refund for a deposit paid upon the opening of a gas account. This customer, a landlord, opened a gas account in his/her name with a supplier for a premise he/she was letting out to tenants. The supplier requested that a deposit be paid and the customer duly paid same. Months later, after the tenants had vacated, the customer noted that his/her deposit had been utilised and that his/her tenants had not paid the gas bills. The customer noted that the deposit he/she paid, had for many months been allocated against bills for the property, and that his/her tenants were subsequently receiving credit bills. The customer felt that the supplier should not have allocated the deposit to the account and only utilised the deposit when the account fell into arrears. Following a CCT investigation, the CCT agreed that the supplier had made an error in terms of allocating the deposit to the account, however the CCT felt the settlement offer made by the supplier of 150 was sufficient and proportionate to the case. The CCT did not uphold the complaint as the customer, a landlord, opened the gas account in his/her own name and therefore ultimately had responsibility for usage at the premise. The landlord, in order to avoid liability for his/her tenant s gas usage, should have closed the account in his/her name and instructed the tenants open an account in their own name. The CCT upheld this customer s complaint having found numerous breaches of the CER S Customer Handbook. The CCT awarded the customer a total sum of 280 in this case. 21

22 Case No 3. Faulty Time-Switch Complaint Not Upheld This customer contacted the CCT as he/she felt overcharged by his/her electricity supplier for a period when the time-switch on his/her electricity meter was faulty. The customer wanted appropriate compensation from his/her supplier and for standing charges to be written off for the 7 month period the time-switch had been faulty. (A faulty time switch can affect the day: night usage ratio and subsequently impact billing). The CER gathered evidence from the customer, the customer s supplier, and ESB Networks (ESBN). Following an investigation it was concluded that the supplier in question could not be held liable. The CCT explained that it is the Network Operator; ESBN, that has responsibility for meter maintenance and meter readings, not the electricity supplier. The supplier followed correct procedure at all times and liaised with networks to ensure that the customer was charged correctly for the period the time-switch was logged as defective. The CER reviewed and analysed all adjustments and calculations made by ESBN to ensure the customer was charged accurately. The CER did not uphold this complaint against the supplier and advised the customer that standing charges would not be written off. Compensation was not offered, however in recognition of the issues that occurred, ESBN installed a new standard (single rate) meter without charge. The CER deemed this to be an appropriate response and the customer was satisfied with the outcome of the dispute. Case No 4. Budget/Level Plan Failure Complaint Upheld This customer upon sign up with a supplier requested to be placed on a budget or level payment plan to ensure he/she could budget for their energy consumption each month. The supplier advised the customer that his/her consumption would be reviewed regularly to ensure accuracy of the budget/level plan instalments. Upon expiry of the customer s contract with the supplier in question, the customer was issued with a large catch up bill of approximately 500. The customer requested this sum be written off as felt the catch up was a result of the supplier s mismanagement of their energy account. The CCT investigated the alleged mismanagement of account and upheld the customer s complaint. The budget/level payment plan had not operated as the supplier had described. The CCT did not request a write off of the catch up bill however, awarded this customer a total sum of 150; consisting of 60 compensation and 3 Charter Payments of 30 each (for breach of various codes of the CER s Handbook). Case No 5. Poor Customer Service Complaint Upheld This customer submitted a formal complaint to the CCT regarding the customer service a supplier afforded to him/her over an extended period of time. This customer s complaint centred on the incorrect information a supplier gave to the customer upon signing up with said supplier over the telephone. This incorrect information in question led to the customers supply reconnection being postponed, and subsequently delayed the customer s occupancy of a property he/she intended to move into. The supplier for weeks denied that incorrect information had been given to the customer until the customer eventually requested a copy of transcripts of a telephone conversation with the supplier. The transcripts proved that incorrect information had indeed been advised to the customer by the supplier. The supplier offered a settlement of 100 which the customer rejected. The customer advised the CER that he/she requested a sincere apology from the supplier in question and additional compensation for the poor customer service received. 22

23 The CCT conducted a thorough investigation of events and directed the supplier award 200 in the form of 5 Charter Payments for various breaches of the CER s Handbook, 100 compensation, and finally issue a letter of apology. the large sum at the centre of this dispute the CER also instructed the supplier to implement a 5 year payment plan for this customer. Case No 6. Disputed Bill Not Upheld This customer s gas meter was exchanged as part of Gas Network Ireland s (GNI) meter exchange programme. A short while afterward the customer was shocked to receive a very large bill from his/her gas supplier. The supplier liaised with GNI, (who has responsibility for the meter) on behalf of the customer to query the large bill in question. GNI advised the supplier that the large bill was due to GNI, following years of no access issues coupled with the customer submitting incorrect readings, finally being able to obtain an actual meter reading at the customers address. GNI advised the supplier that the bill was due and owing. The customer advised the CER that the explanations with regard to the large catch up bill provided by both the supplier and network operator were insufficient and incorrect. The customer requested the CCT comprehensively investigate. The CCT gathered evidence from all parties and investigated the issues raised by the customer. It was found that GNI had not been able to obtain a meter reading at the customer s address in 8 years. A meter test and report confirmed the meter in question was not faulty and there was sound evidence that the meter readings submitted by the customer over the years had been inconsistent. The CCT, comprehensively explained its findings to the customer based on the evidence provided. The CCT did not uphold the customer complaint however awarded 4 Charter Payments; 2 x 35 each to be awarded by GNI (the CCT felt the network operator had a duty to ensure the no access issue was rectified sooner) and 2 x 30 each to be awarded for two errors (customer service) committed by the supplier. Given 23

24 CASE STUDIES WATER Case No 1. Upheld Water Damage Complaint Not This complaint centred on the customers claim that Irish Water, upon installing a water meter at the customers property, caused a water pressure surge to occur. The customer advised the CCT that the pressure surge caused a valve to blow in the customer s water filtration system and subsequently water escaped causing damage in the customer s home. The customer requested over 5000 in compensation. Irish Water denied liability and felt the customers plumbing, if up to required standard, would be able to withstand water pressure when the water was turned off and on following meter installation. The CCT can only make a judgement based on the evidence provided. This customer s complaint was not upheld as there was insufficient evidence provided by either party that would enable the CER to make a conclusive judgement on the matter. Irish Water s contractors with regard to the leak investigation while abroad. The customer advised the contractors that he/she did not wish to discuss the leak investigation while abroad. Irish Water s contractors advised the customer that they felt he/she was being uncooperative and subsequently advised the customer they would be cancelling the appointment for a leak investigation. The customer upon return to Ireland subsequently logged a complaint with Irish Water. The customer felt throughout his/her complaint that Irish Water was unhelpful and referred the customer direct to the contractor rather than dealing with the complaint themselves. There was also an error in terms of the content of a letter Irish Water issued to the customer regarding the results of his/her leak investigation. The CER investigated and agreed that there was an accumulation of errors by Irish Water in the handling of this customers account and complaint. The customer s complaint was upheld and Irish Water was directed to pay 40 compensation to the customer and retract the letter which contained incorrect information. Case No 2. Communications Failure Complaint Upheld This customer received a letter from Irish Water advising of a possible leak at the customer s address. The customer contacted Irish Water to make an appointment for a First Fix leak investigation and was advised that he/she would be contacted in 10 days. The 10 days passed with no contact received. The customer again contacted Irish Water to advise that he/she would be shortly going abroad and did not wish to be contacted regarding the leak investigation while away. The customer despite his/her specific instruction was indeed contacted by telephone by 24

25 WHAT S NEXT IN 2016? The CCT in 2016 will continue to provide a dispute resolution service for final customers of energy suppliers and network operators, as well as customers of Irish Water. The team will focus on continuously developing and improving the service they provide as well as ensuring energy and water customers are protected. We will do this through a review of our processes with the aim of reducing complaint resolution times to within 90 days. As highlighted earlier in this report; the CCT outsource the initial contact element of our workload. The CCT will work to ensure that maximum value is extracted from this arrangement and that it continues to deliver a quality service for customers. A retendering process will be initiated for this contract in 2016 and will use this opportunity to review and improve further the processes and procedures we have in place. In terms of information sharing, the team will continue to provide information to customers (via the CER s website and through direct customer communication channels) in relation to policy changes and in relation to the overall functioning of the energy and water sectors. The team will continue to liaise with internal departments within the CER with regard to customer related issues, and continue to communicate and highlight areas of customer concern. In 2016 the CCT will again contribute to the policy formulation process within the CER by incorporating customer feedback. This feedback ensures future energy and water policy is formulated in a more customer focused manner. In particular the CCT will contribute to the review of the Supplier Handbook that will take place in The changes to the Handbook will improve on existing customer protection measures. The CCT will continue to engage with suppliers, network operators and Irish Water to work towards improving customer service levels and complaint handling processes. Through this we hope to continue the positive trends in complaints logged that we observed in The CCT will work to further promote our services in 2016 to ensure customers are made aware of the assistance we can provide and what a customer can expect from our dispute resolution service. We want customers to feel confident and comfortable when bringing a complaint to the CER and will ensure our dispute resolution service remains accessible and efficient. The CER want energy and water customer to feel empowered, confident and comfortable in bringing a complaint to the CCT. Overall 2015 has been another busy year for the team and no doubt 2016 will also be equally demanding and challenging. We will continue to work with Irish Water as they enter their second full year of operations. The CCT will ensure that Irish Water address all customer complaints that arise. The CCT s regulatory functions in the water sector are well underway and the team is ready for any change in the levels of complaints or the structure of the public water sector. Customer Care Team Contact Details Customers can contact the CCT through the following channels: customercare@cer.ie Phone: Address: The Customer Care Team P.O. Box Dublin 24 25