Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Industry Shipperless & Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 3rd November 10.00am at xoserve.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Industry Shipperless & Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 3rd November 10.00am at xoserve."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Industry Shipperless & Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 3rd November 10.00am at xoserve

2 2 Agenda  Introduction: (10 minutes) (Alison Jennings & Mark Woodward) Previous minutes  Statistical Information: (10 minutes) (Mark Woodward) Overall industry position with unregistered and shipperless meter points  Legal framework for shipperless and unregistered sites (Andrew Wallace)  Disconnection Process: (David Watson)  Root Cause: (2 hours) (ALL) Root Cause Schedule MNC Queries – Conclusions from meeting in September Existing Services set to DE – Conclusions from meeting in September Existing services set to DE in error or legitimately - Conclusions from meeting in September Address Clarity - Conclusions from meeting in September ACTION: To provide updates to the list of root causes discussed so far in order to feed into the report being produced first quarter of next year

3 3 Statistical Information

4 4 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

5 5 Root cause

6 6 Root Cause Schedule

7 7  Action: To provide updates to the list of root causes discussed so far in order to feed into the report being produced.  To Conclude: MNC Queries Existing Services set to DE Existing services set to DE in error or legitimately Address Clarity Root Cause Topics – To conclude

8 8 Root Cause Topics 10. Legitimately Unregistered Currently the volume of legitimately unregistered categorised sites account for 29,386 MPRN’s This represents: Around 0.13% of the population of sites on UK Link. The 29k go back over 10 yrs, if we take the last 5 yrs (which account for approx 92% of the volume) and the approx volume created over 5 yrs 414,000 this would represent 7.10% xoserve currently defines legitimately unregistered sites as either: 1.Live service with no meter 2.Deferred service 3.Vacant 4.Capped service/capped meter

9 9 Root Cause Topics As part of the our current process for Unregistered sites >12months a series of checks are carried out : They are checked against the Connections & Disconnections register to determine any meter activity (if meter activity identified it confirms there is service in the ground) – if identified moved to orphaned table. Send out MPRN reports to MAM’s (Meter Asset Managers). Again if identified a meter attached suggests that service in the ground – again if identified moved to orphaned table. Where no meter activity is confirmed from carrying out both steps 1 & 2 the remaining portfolio is sent out to the UIP’s, who originally requested for an MPRN to be created for the property. We ask that they confirm if either one of the following: a) Job completed - If job completed it becomes legitimately unregistered b) Job Cancelled - If job cancelled MPRN is set to “EX” c) Job Deferred - If job deferred site becomes legitimately unregistered (as deferred status) d) IGT/LPG site - If job IGT/LPG MPRN is set to “EX” On a bi-monthly basis the table is refreshed when a site is confirmed or the MP status changes (e.g. EX or DE) or meter activity is recorded on C&D Periodic checks with UIP’s on the deferred sites Periodic checks with the MAM’s & C&D store to see if meters fitted Desk top clean up exercises conducted

10 10 Root Cause Topics Problems/issues: Not all MAM’s are signed onto providing information about meters fitted Not all UIP’s are signed onto providing information on whether a site should not have been created – largely a manual process as some unable to link into their systems. (Good response so far, figures later) Too costly to visit all properties Notification from UIP’s is not currently sent when jobs change from deferred status Historically M Numbers were created at service and meter fit, with them now being created at possible service fit we will inevitably end up with some properties just having the service. The number of M Numbers being requested to create each month would suggest that that we may historically had a lot of service only sites without meters On new developments it may be simply more cost effective to lay services to all properties with the intension that at some time in the future the service will be utilised Vacant properties - No effective way to confirm if site comes on-line as no registered user

11 11 Problems/issues: continued Letter process proved ineffective in ensuring site information Legal challenges for Networks disconnecting services after an agreed period Discussions points: Are there additional categories that determine a legitimately unregistered site that xoserve may not have considered? Are there additional checks or systems xoserve could utilise to determine if site has meter attached and a Shipper associated to it? Are there any obligations that can be placed upon MAM’s or UIP’s to provide certain information? Do we accept that there are and will always be a certain volume of legitimately unregistered sites with live services but no meters attached? What else can the industry do to investigate if these sites are legitimately unregistered? Root Cause Topics

12 12 11. Meters fitted on site but not confirmed on UK-link Extracts from shipper requests to create an M Number Please generate a new MPRN for the address XXXXXX There is a live service to this property laid post August 2002. Previous MPRN XXXXXXX showing as dead status. MSN XXXXXXX on site.  Please create an MPRN for the address and meter listed, as they are currently live, but MPRN XXXXXX is showing as DEAD on UK Link. The meter details are: MSN XXXXXXX, MAKE: SCH, MODEL: MD16, Dials 6, Year of Manufacture: 2001, Metric with an opening index of 061689, current index of 010843, taken on 06/07/09 and a fix date of 01/10/04.We have been supplying this site since 01/10/04 but I do not know why this MPRN was made DEAD. Please investigate.  The End User has confirmed that MSN XXXXX is on site with no MPR.Please create an MPR for this meter as it is consuming gas and needs to be billed as soon as possible. Root Cause Topics

13 13 Root Cause Topics Problems/issues: No ongoing commitment to provide updates to shipper activity reports Meter Asset Managers providing meter fitted details which are not being confirmed Confirmation rejections and RGMA rejections for new sites not being re-worked Meters being fitted at supplier request then unable to secure contract Lack of governance surrounding developers and independent meter workers MNC’s being raised with or without meters fitted on site not being followed through to confirmation Duplicates – Meter exchanges against old MPRN when new MPRN remains unconfirmed M Numbers created where existing M Number has been set to Dead that remain unregistered due to Dead M Number remaining confirmed

14 14 Root Cause Topics Discussions points: Is there any governance around the Connections and Disconnection store, if not should there be? Do UIP’s fit both meters and services at the same time? Even prior to a shipper being associated to the site Do MAM’s fit meters prior to shipper/ supplier being associated to the site Is there any set of circumstances which would allow for a meter being fitted without being associated to a shipper? If confirmation/RGMA rejects what procedure should follow? What are the incentives to confirm a site?

15 15 Root Cause Topics 12. MPRN Allocation Problems/issues:  Ineffective management of MPRN allocations (UIP’s)  Data labelling firms are distributing MPRN’s  Batches of MPRN’s were issued upon request whilst making no reference to the previous batch  Historically large batches of MPRN’s have been allocated to individual UIP’s  Developers & UIP’s allocating MPRN’s to different sites within the same development  Random MPRN’s are unable to generate thus meaning another MPRN will be required (very small numbers)

16 16 Discussions points:  What controls./ measures are taken by UIP’s to ensure MPRN batch is utilised effectively  xoserve introduced the following controls  Requested that all UIP’s check previous allocations going back to 2008  Upon request of new MPR’s previous batch investigated to establish previous batch utilised (internal & external)  Communicated that UIP’s to ensure that the previous batch of MPRN’s have not ran out prior to submitting a new request  xoserve allocate a maximum of six months worth of MPRN’s per batch  Record one customer per batch and store information of what MPRN’s were allocated and when they were issued and to whom. Are there other controls xoserve could employ?  How do UIP’s allocate MPRN’s to labelling firms (in bulk/ per job?)  Do UIP’s & Networks have a way of checking previous batches using a system approach?  In all circumstances do the UIP’s attach the label to the service, or are there instances where they are issued to the developer?  Should the label be more fixed rather than have the potential of being moved from one property to the next? Root Cause Topics

17 17 Root Cause Topics 13. No Response to Shipper Activity, MAM & UIP Reports Shipper Activity reports JanuaryMarchMayJulySeptember Number of shippers42513 Number of sites813712746935 UIP Reports Jan/Feb 09Mar/Apr 09May/June 09July/Aug 09 Number of sites issued 1,18510051,145 Number of sites responded to540958 (80.84%)1005 (100%)11

18 18 Root Cause Topics Problems/issues:  Supplier information is required from all MAM’s in order to identify who originally requested for meter to be fitted. The MAM’s however, require shippers consent prior to releasing this information  UIP’s are not obliged to provide details on (Job completions, cancellations, deferments & IGT indicators)  Recipients of Shipper activity reports not cross referencing the “dead portfolio”  Shippers carry out exchanges against the old MPRN prior it being set to DE status instead of confirming the new MPRN.  Are the current recipients of the Shipper Activity Reports ensuring the reports are responded to. No obligation/ governance in place to support this process  No distinct targets and incentives in place to tackle the orphaned sites. In order for the process to work at a reduced cost we need to have Shippers, MAM’s & UIP’s signed onto providing updates

19 19 Discussions points:  Upon receipt of the Shipper Activity report what is the current procedure  Are the current recipients of the Shipper Activity reports cross referencing the “dead portfolio”  Is it possible for all Shippers to give their consent to all MAM’s to release Supplier information to xoserve  Are their any ideas other than Shippers cross-referencing their portfolio in order to reduce the number of sites contained within the orphaned reports  Are there any reasons why positive confirmations should not follow confirmation rejections and C&D updates  Would Shippers benefit from xoserve meeting with them on a 121 basis with the aim of reducing the numbers of unregistered sites Root Cause Topics

Download ppt "1 Industry Shipperless & Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 3rd November 10.00am at xoserve."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google