Ofgem penalises United Gas & Power (UGP) following deliberate and significant overcharging of customers

Press release
Publication date
Industry sector
Supply and Retail Market

Energy regulator Ofgem has today published the findings of an investigation which has found that energy supplier United Gas & Power Ltd (UGP) has breached Standard Licence Conditions (SLCs), the most serious of which relates to the deliberate overcharging of customers.

As the energy regulator, Ofgem is committed to protecting consumers and carries outregular and robust enforcement activity.

Ofgem is now issuing non-domestic market energy supplier UGP, which serves around 2,700 customers, with a penalty of £2,111,798.00, following an investigation opened in July 2020.

Cathryn Scott, Director of Enforcement and Emerging Issues at Ofgem said:

“UGP's behaviour was unacceptable. No matter what financial difficulties companies may find themselves in, it is plainly unjustifiable and wholly unacceptable to deliberately overcharge customers to boost revenue.

“In addition to this overcharging, it is concerning that UGP failed to return credit owing to former customers and retained such large sums in their own account; only refunding customers following Ofgem's intervention.

These are very difficult times for businesses and energy consumers. This significant penalty should send a strong signal to all suppliers in the market to act with the utmost care and integrity when it comes to customers' money.”

Ofgem found that, in February 2020, despite having actual consumption data available, UGP billed some customers on inflated consumption estimates, generating extra revenue for itself to remedy a shortfall in its budget. The average customer was overcharged by more than £2,000, with one customer overcharged by more than £22,000. Some of these amounts were not returned as promptly as they could have been, with some customers not receiving their money back for up to seven months after it was taken from them.

UGP has, however, proactively and prior to Ofgem’s intervention, apologised to the customers it overcharged and did make significant goodwill gesture payments to those customers.

In addition to the overcharging of consumers, eight other SLC breaches were identified, some lasting for five years and longer. These include the handling of credit balances on former customers’ accounts, whereby credits owing to customers were not returned promptly or at all, with UGP amassing just shy of £250,000 in credit balances from its microbusiness consumers (MBCs). UGP has now returned just over half this money, but some former customers cannot be located.

Ofgem has now agreed to settle the case with UGP, imposing a penalty of £2,111,798.00. UGP will pay a nominal fine of £1 and £2,111,798.00 (less £1) will be paid to Ofgem’s Voluntary Redress Fund.

These monies will be distributed to appropriate organisations for the benefit of energy consumers.

In addition to the breaches relating to billing, UGP also breached SLCs relating to the proper identification of MBCs. This led to many of the customers affected not being afforded the relevant additional protections MBCs receive.

Furthermore, UGP also breached conditions relating to the provision of important information at the time of contract renewal, leaving many MBCs without the required information to make informed switching choices and take advantage of other deals available.

In relation to the other breaches in the case, UGP has taken appropriate remedial actions to improve its processes and performance.

This is just one of many enforcement cases undertaken by Ofgem, with a full list available here.

Ends.

Notes to editors

For more information about the Redress Fund see here.

Ofgem recently published a webpage outlining series of a protections specifically available for Micro Business Consumers here.

TABLES OF BREACHES - UGP

 

No.

Breach descriptor

Breach Period

1

Failed to bill customers based on meter readings and instead deliberately overcharged some customers by using inflated consumption estimates, contrary to SLC 21B.1

February 2020

2

Failed to communicate appropriately with MBC customers, having made billing errors and which consequently led to significant catch-up bills, contrary to SLC 0A.2

6 February 2020 to

29 April 2020

3

Failed to properly identify customers that met the criteria of a MBC, during the onboarding and contract renewal processes, contrary to SLC 7A.1 (a) and (b)

1 April 2016 to 1

January 2022

4

Failed to provide information clearly, or at all, in relation to credit balances on closed accounts, either on final bills issued or in any other communication, contrary to SLC 0A.2

10 October 2017 to

12 January 2022

5

Failed to provide information clearly, or at all, in relation to credit balances on closed accounts, either on final bills issued or in any other communication, contrary to SLC 7B.5

1 February 2017 to

9 October 2017

 

 

No.

Breach descriptor

Breach Period

6

Failed to issue Statements of Renewal to MBCs that gave important information appropriate prominence, contrary to SLC 0A.2

10 October 2017 to

19 October 2020

7

Failed to issue Statements of Renewal to MBCs that gave important information appropriate prominence, contrary to SLC 7B.5

1 February 2017 to

9 October 2017

8

Failed to provide the required information to MBCs during the contract renewal process, contrary to SLC 7A.8 (e) and (f)

1 February 2017 to

19 October 2020

9

Failed to provide Principal Terms to MBCs, contrary to 7A.8 (b) (i) and (ii) and (d)

1 February 2017 to

31 August 2021