1. 1 Industry Shipperless &Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 8th September 10.00am at xoserve

2. 2 Agenda  Introduction: (15 minutes) (Alison Jennings & Mark Woodward) Previous minutes  Statistical Information: (15 minutes) (Mark Woodward) Overall industry position with unregistered and shipperless meter points  Root Cause: (2 hours) (ALL) Service laid but no MPRN – Conclusions from meeting in July Inaccurate tagging of services – Conclusions from meeting in July MPRN’s created for IGT/LPG sites - Conclusions from meeting in July 6MNC Queries 7Existing Services not set to DE 8Existing Services set to DE in error 9Address Clarity

3. 3 Statistical Information

4. 4 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

5. 5  Latest set of reports issued covering May – June 09 created  Shipper Activity: Sent out: 664 1 shipper organisation so far responded to July reports: 36 sites responded to (5.42% of total sent out): Action 90: Those shippers (having approved publication) that have provided returns over the last couple of reports issued Scottish & Southern Scottish Power BGT E ON Still seeking approval from AN Other NB: If there is any shipper who believes they are not listed that have responded to the last few reports issued could they please let me know the details Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points Conquest C&D Store Confirmation RejectionsServiceTOTAL Single MPRN's 17829913291781664

6. 6 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points  Orphaned Report: Sent out 16,959 (volume now 15,722) 32 Properties on single postcode 9 confirmed 1 no activity report 22 orphaned report 22 C&D with meters using gas for just over 12 months

7. 7 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points  What are xoserve doing to try and manage the unregistered portfolio: Message sent out August to establish if we have the right contacts for the reports and offering support, assistance and advice. Continue to work with Meter Asset Managers – Although difficult to engage all in the concept of trying to clean data. (no obligations) Continue to work with Utility Infrastructure Providers – Although difficult to engage all in concept of trying to clean data. (no obligations) Continue to monitor the Connections & Disconnections Store (C&D) Desk clean up exercises  Meter Points created < 12 months:

8. 8 Analysis of latest movement to the population from the reports sent out in late November for October/November 2008

9. 9 Root cause

10. 10  Action: Would like comments based on the Topics discussed so far 1. Timescales for mprn creation 2. xoserve not informed of new service job cancellations or deferment  To Conclude: Service laid but no MPRN Inaccurate tagging of services MPRN’s created for IGT/LPG sites Root Cause Topics – To conclude

11. 11 6. MNC queries Average raised per month – 1,900 around 1,700 created on UK Link Shipper Activity reports (raised on conquest) sent out; May – 183 (27.81%) July - 178 (26.81%) Dataset December 2009 – May 2010 Just over 10K Created 1,180 (12.92%) remain unconfirmed  Problems/issues: MNC requests are being created, where the M Number already exists on UK Link plot/postal or slightly different address which result in duplicates and/or unregistered. Requests to create M Numbers not being followed through with confirmations. UIP’s not labeling the services when originally fitting the service. The volume received suggest we either have a lot of live services pre labeling (2002, 8yrs on), services not being labeled, ineffective checks being carried out with end user or historic data cleansing exercises which resulted in M Numbers being set to DE or EX Root Cause Topics

12. 12 6. MNC queries (continued)  Discussions points: Are there reasons as to why a Shipper requests for an M Number to be created and upon completion not follow through with confirmation? If an end user, with meter, is looking to get a shipper and the M Number is not on UK Link, once created why would there be no confirmation when the customer had effectively been receiving free gas at the time? Is a site visit conducted if an end consumer is unable to locate service label (i.e. if vulnerable customer)? Why are we finding so many services with meters fitted that are not present on UK link?(8yrs after labeling was introduced) Evidence suggests that meters are being fitted before a signed contract is in place or alternatively following the initial request, the end consumer then refuses to sign/ cancels the contract? Who should be responsible? What questions are asked and/or system checks used by Shippers when a new end consumer contacts them in order to identify the MPRN associated to the site in question? Root Cause Topics

13. 13 Root Cause Topics 7. Existing services not set to DE  Problems/issues: Evidence of UIP’s laying new service unsure of correct procedure to follow in order to get the existing MPRN set to DE or who to report them too. Risk of duplicates existing on UK-Link Increased rejection volumes for UIP MPRN creations as the site already exists and may be a genuine MPRN creation for new service (also linked to when a new mprn should be requested) ISO queries raised by shippers resulting in the Networks having to carry out Live/ Dead checks on site at a cost. Networks not being informed about setting meter points to DE

14. 14 Root Cause Topics 7. Existing services not set to DE (continued)  Discussions points: What is the correct procedure for setting an MPRN to DE What is the correct procedure when a service requires an M Number created and when to use the existing M Number (Linked to discussion under topic 3) Should xoserve be creating new M Numbers with an existing live M Number

15. 15 Root Cause Topics 8. Existing services set to DE in error or legitimately Conducting some analysis on DE reports to determine how many have new live MPRN’s present on UK-link that are unregistered  Problems/issues: Shippers not utilising the Dead Portfolio sent out monthly Shippers using old service MPRN and updating with a meter exchange, thus leaving the new MPRN unregistered. Unnecessary MPRN creations adding to existing volumetric If a site is set to DE in error a new MPRN may never be created for the site unless xoserve is informed

16. 16  Discussions points: Are shippers reviewing the Dead portfolio’s issued monthly? What is the procedure when a new MPRN should be created? What should the procedure be with the old service MPRN on re-lays where a new MPRN is created? Are UIP’s aware of the what should happen to the data when dealing with the old service MPRN? Can networks only set the MPRN to DE if they are made aware of it? Can we avoid shippers carrying out exchanges on the old MPRN before it is set to DE status Root Cause Topics

17. 17 9. Address Clarity UNC Queries (Address amendments prior to ownership) Data from January10 to May10 1,460 requests to change address 560 (38.36%) by UIP’s = 458 (81.79%) Valid, 102 (18.21%) invalid 900 (61.64%) for shippers prior to ownership 787 (87.44%) valid, 113 (12.56%) invalid Of the 787 changes 750 (95.30%) now confirmed, 37 (4.70%) not confirmed Still conducting analysis on the shipper confirmation rejection files and reasons for new sites.  Problems/issues: At quotation acceptance stage (which could be over twelve months before a service goes in the ground) the address details may change slightly/dramatically during this period (e.g. Plot to Postal) UIP’s are not obligated to provide updated correct address details Root Cause Topics

18. 18 Root Cause Topics  Problems/issues: (continued) Increased number of duplicates if address details differ High confirmation rejection rate on new site confirmations due to post code issues Changes in address not being communicated to xoserve effectively where there is a difference between the UIP and developer No consistent address format exists between industry players Increase in the number of no access as unable to locate property following site visits Increase in unregistered sites as customer may provide different address details as to what is held on UK-Link

19. 19  Discussions points: Should xoserve be amending the address, at shippers request, prior to ownership? Should xoserve be changing the address, to that provided by the UIP, in order to make it PAF valid or to avoid a rejection? If UIP’s are sending address amendments to xoserve is this information being relayed to service requester? Do shippers check with IAD for address information prior to submitting a confirmation file? Root Cause Topics