Far from it,

Jalexa is being very constructive, especially when you piece your quote with other infoamtion provided by them in other posts. While you sit back claim "oh woe is me, its not my fault the big nasty energy supplier didn't look out for my personal interests" you will be nothing but a victim.

Change your attitude to something more helpful such as "they got me once, but won't get me agian, i'm going to take more responsibility for my situation and ensure i'm doing everything in my power to get a better deal!" and i'm sure you'll get better results.

Attacking people that have been, and will be offering their support and knowledge is perhaps not the best idea in the world.

In the consumer market there suppliers have only two clauses they can intiate to object to a transfer.

1. There has been a continuing outstanding balance on an account for a period of 90 days or more. I.e. you owe your supplier £100.00 on your first quarter and by your 4th quester its still there if not greater.

2. there is an issue with the metering profile, meaning that either the gaining supplier hasn't correctly applied for the meter/meters (very common in older E10 or RHT set ups), or the gaining supplier does not support the meter (and associated tarrif)

In most cases an active complaint would waiver clause 1. it is also worth noting that just because they "can" object doesn't mean they "will" object. In general terms you should consider your position following a successful switch, getting away from anightmare provider is a good thing, but may leave you in a sticky situation if you now have a large balance to clear, you may not get as generous a repayment time if they do not supply you.

In your situation again speak with your supplier and find out the excact reason for the objection and if it holds very little water ensure that they remove the objection and re-apply to your supplier of choice.

Mynewt:

In the consumer market there suppliers have only two clauses they can intiate to object to a transfer.

1. There has been a continuing outstanding balance on an account for a period of 90 days or more. I.e. you owe your supplier £100.00 on your first quarter and by your 4th quester its still there if not greater.

That's interesting. Is the word "owe" significant? If there is a debit balance resulting only from the set direct debit being insufficient I "understand" there would not usually be an objection. Is that a "customer right" or the supplier choosing not to object?

Hi Jalexa,

In general terms as I understand it (I can't claim to be 100% certain on this aspect as it isn't my my area), its supplier choice. How much of that is influenced by consumer focus/OFGem pressure I cannot say.

Here is an interesting copy/paste from a Consumer Focus response to "Debt Blocking" which can be found here. Given this I assume the arguement would now rage around the terms "agreed debt payment arrangement"

"However, it is important to note that the Ofgem definition of debt only includes those households who have agreed a debt payment arrangement with their supplier, which is scheduled to last longer than 91 days"

Mynewt:

Here is an interesting copy/paste from a Consumer Focus response to "Debt Blocking"

Fascinating (sadly). Interesting that "supplier error" is grounds for an objection and that Consumer Focus don't seem fussed.