1. 1 Industry Shipperless &Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 7th July 10.00am at xoserve

2. 2 Agenda  Introduction: (30 minutes) (Alison Jennings & Mark Woodward) Previous minutes  Statistical Information: (30 minutes) (Mark Woodward) Overall industry position with unregistered and shipperless meter points  Root Cause: (1 hour 30 minutes) (ALL) Timescales for MPRN creation – Conclusions from meeting in May xoserve is not informed of new service job cancellations or deferment – Conclusions from meeting in May 3Service laid but no MPRN is requested. MPRN Creation Request rejections are not resubmitted. Later manifest as Fast Track Queries. 4Inaccurate tagging of services Potential dual billing. Potential duplication. Potential crossed meters. 5MPRNs Created for IGT / LPG Sites Growing market. How do we prevent this from happening?

3. 3 Statistical Information

4. 4 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

5. 5  Latest set of reports for March – April 09 sent out in May 10 Next set of reports for May – June 09 - to be produced end of July 10  Shipper Activity: Sent out: 658 Domestic - 545 (82.83%) I&C - 113 (17.17%) 2 shipper organisation responded to May reports: 93 sites responded to (14.14%): 19 – YES – Intend to confirm 23 - Alternative sites 1- Still investigating 36 - No contract 14 – No Live Service 1 shipper organisation responded to a previous report 49 sites responded to: 49 – No Live Service  Orphaned Report: Sent out: 16,403 (16,452) Domestic –14,188 (86.24%) I&C - 2,264 (13.76%) Age Analysis: Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points Date of CreationVolume% Pre 20004782.91% 20001,1647.10% 20019165.58% 20021,2597.68% 20032,72316.60% 20041,5879.68% 20051,1426.96% 20061,2657.71% 20072,12112.93% 20083,11018.96% 20096383.89% TOTAL16,403100.00%

6. 6  No Activity and Legitimately unregistered: No Activity: Volumes: 5,878 Domestic – 4,976 (84.65%) I&C - 902 (15.35%) Age Analysis: Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points No Activity Date of CreationVolume% Pre 200000.00% 200000.00% 200100.00% 200210.02% 200320.03% 200430.05% 200580.14% 20064407.48% 20071,90232.35% 20082,15536.66% 20091,36723.27% TOTAL5,878100.00%

7. 7  Shipperless Sites (PTS&SSP): PTS Sent out 985 Domestic – 881(92.54%) I&C - 71 (7.46%) SSP Sent out 3,205 (3,580) Domestic – 3,220 (89.94%) I&C - 360 (10.06%) Legitimate Date of CreationVolume% Pre 2000710.29% 2000670.28% 20011090.45% 20025232.17% 20031,2645.24% 20041,5396.38% 20052,64010.94% 20064,67919.39% 20076,65027.55% 20086,02724.97% 20095672.35% TOTAL24,136100.00% Legitimately unregistered: Volumes: 24,136 Domestic – 21,111 (87.47) I&C - 3,025 (12.53%) NB: Based on AQ’s not yet used Age Analysis: Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

8. 8 Total initially sent out NovConfirmations Set to EXDeferred Legitimately Unregistered Left O/S With Meter details Unknown if Meter Fitted Shipper Activity579944800437220217 No Activity1,6592872056857052985444 Analysis of latest movement to the population from the reports sent out in late November for October/November 2008  Currently targeting the remaining figures should have results by next meeting

9. 9 Root cause

10. 10 Root Cause Topics Unregistered Meter Points Not receiving Cancelled M Numbers by UIP or shipper Legitimately unregistered Shipper not confirming sites IGT Sites Shipper requested M Numbers Address issues Duplicates Meter point set to Dead – Either correct or incorrect – New M Number created No End Result Timeframe for Creation of an M Number No response to shipper reports

11. 11  Timescales for MPRN creation  xoserve is not informed of new service job cancellations or deferment Root Cause Topics – To conclude

12. 12 3. Service laid but no MPRN provided Fast Track Queries are running at an average of 2,826 per year UIP Rejections are running at an average of 7,478 per year We carried out some analysis with the aim of identifying why fast tracks queries were not raised via the UIP route. Our Findings were as follows: Volume Percentage UIP Creation rejected and not returned 93 21.7% UIP Creation never raised 270 63% UIP Creation received around the same time 49 11.8% Address or quality issue 15 3.5% Root Cause Topics

13. 13 Root Cause Topics 3. Service laid but no MPRN provided (continued)  Problems/issues: Service laid however, no MPRN creation ever received Historic MPRN creations rejected back to UIP’s and never re-submitted Fast Track queries having to be raised  Discussions points: What check do networks have in place to ensure a new MPRN is created for a completed job?. Does awareness need to be raised on what constitutes an MPRN creation upon job type (i.e. alterations/ new connections)? What checks are completed by a shipper prior to creation of fast track? Are all UIP’s aware of the procedure? What do xoserve provide the UIP’s?

14. 14 4. Inaccurate Tagging of Services Duplicates raised between January 2010 – May 2010 NB: Not all necessarily treated as duplicates  Problems/issues: Services not being re-labeled if MPRN set to DE in error Multiple data labeling service companies in operation (Some allocate MPRN’s to new UIP’s) Developers amend their plans post the original quotation Meters being fitted to cancelled jobs Data Quality If An MNC MPRN is created and confirmed by a shipper prior to receiving FOM request the label details will be incorrect. Risk of crossed meters & services if large development (i.e. block of 200 flats) Dual Billing Root Cause Topics AgeVolume Pre 20001,865 200061 200169 2002105 2003125 2004173 2005183 2006195 2007184 2008195 2009167 201013

15. 15  Discussions points: What do MAM’s do if asked to fit meters to properties where M Numbers are different to that provided by Supplier? What happens if a MPRN is created following quotation acceptance then, subsequently the job is cancelled and re-quoted under a new MPRN. Is the original label re-called? Why would shipper erroneously confirm a new MPRN? If a service has been identified as labelled incorrectly does the UIP investigate and re-label the service if required? What are the current obligations on labelling of services? Root Cause Topics

16. 16 5. MPRN’s created for IGT/LPG sites IGT (Duplicates) raised between January 2010 – May 2010 Unfortunately, xoserve are limited on the number of IGT checks for our MPRN creation processes due to availability of systems and lack of regulation. Some of the checks we do complete are: xoserve check via web based system www.spaa.co.uk In order to identify the official list of IGTwww.spaa.co.uk MPRN’s (74 to 77 ranges xoserve also cross reference our IAD systems as IGT’s upload their portfolio’s on a monthly basis. xoserve also checks UK-Link. If it is identified that the street or town does not exist, we will refer the request back to UIP/ Shipper to seek assurance that this not an IGT area xoserve also send out a bi-monthly no activity report to UIP’s for shipperless and unregistered sites that remain unconfirmed for greater that twelve months. In turn, they check the sites against their records to confirm if they are IGT sites Regrettably, as our checks are so limited there is a real risk for 9 series MPRN’s being created that are IGT sites Root Cause Topics AgeVolume Pre 200057 20005 200117 200242 200320 20046 200510 200611 200749 200854 200918 20102 TOTAL291

17. 17 Root Cause Topics 5. MPRN’s created for IGT/LPG sites (continued)  Problems/issues: Unknown volume IGT’s & LPG’s are currently not regulated under UNC or obliged to provide all industry players with information on their portfolio’s xoserve is limited as to the number of checks that can be completed to identify IGT/ LPG sites and on occasion 9 series MPRN’s are created for IGT/LPG’s Discrepancies exist between the IGT information held on IAD compared to certain MAP’s system Since the sale of the Networks in 2006 no centralised national MAP’s (ordnance survey) system currently exists The IGT Market is growing

18. 18  Discussions points: Are MAM’s aware if they fit a meter to an IGT pipework? Do IGT’s do pipework and fit meter at the same time? How can we reduce the number of IGT/LPG sites being submitted by UIP’s and shippers? Are there any additional check’s both UIP’s and xoserve can complete that may not have been originally considered? Can the Network assist both UIP’s & MAM’s identify IGT areas. Plus xoserve to review current unregistered portfolio to identify if IGT sites that may exist within it? Root Cause Topics