A frugal life is an easy life!

Representing an SSE customer, whom has had their energy accounts (for gas and electricity) transferred over to Ovo (the company that own SSE).

A simple process, which has been over complicated and left the customer’s account balance over £1300 worse off.

Ovo’s online staff and senior complaints resolution staff, have been obstructive, misleading and inaccurate in their responses.

Ovo senior staff have deliberately attempted to confuse issues, even when a same basic question has been put to them on several occasions, refusing to answer.

Ovo staff have gone even further, in attempting to persuade others to make themselves financially liable for the account, before responding/discussing the account, quoting inaccurate legal positions/requirements, while failing to abide by current legal practices required (under common law for England and Wales).

SSE’s staff refuse to even discuss the issues (let alone act) and simply refer directly to Ovo’s staff.

The complaint:

• SSE have billed the customer in the past.
• The customer was over £700 in credit.
• Ovo took over the account via transfer from SSE.
• Ovo have read their smart meters.
• SSE have re-billed the customer.
• After “Checking” with SSE’s back office, migration team, Ovo have applied their re-billing to the customer’s account.
• The customer was put into debit on their Ovo account, by over £650.

Now under normal circumstances there would not be an issue.
However, a succession of misleading and inaccurate statements from Ovo staff, led to the complaint being escalated to Ovo’s senior resolution staff.

Ovo’s senior resolution staff gave explanations that can be proven to be false/inaccurate.

When questioned to justify their position, Ovo’s senior resolution staff have been unable to answer several key facts.
I put these key questions to the senior resolution staff again.
Again, they refused to answer what are to me, basic questions, that would justify their position.

Their response was, “We are going around in circles here” and “You are simply refusing to accept the answers I’m giving!”

This has led to Ovo senior resolution staff offering “A £100 goodwill gesture credit” to close the complaint.

This has now gone to a “final resolution letter” and the energy ombudsman option.

I’m happy to deal with the account, however, I’m not happy to proceed unless fundamental questions can be answered, especially when it can be proven that the claims of Ovo’s senior resolution team (via SSE’s migration/accounts team), are false and inaccurate.

At the very least it requires SSE and Ovo to explain what has been done.

There will follow here, a series of posts, regarding the transfer of an energy account from SSE to Ovo.

Complete failings in what has occurred includes inaccurate Ovo staff reporting, failure to escalate/register a formal complaint, a huge reduction in the account balances for gas and electricity, unexplained SSE meter readings, missing billing, unexplained billing and an attempt at back-billing by SSE via Ovo, dating back more than 12 months.

To write one post about the case, would result in a very long post, with so many facets that it would be hard to follow.
Also, others are reporting similar issues with certain aspects of this case about SSE and Ovo.

These posts will serve as a reference for myself (as is the case with many posts on the website) and may shed some light on certain aspects, for other cases.

I hope this will help.

SSE to Ovo transfer – What’s the complaint?

SSE to Ovo transfer – Unknown meter readings!

SSE to Ovo transfer – Missing bills!

Long story short...

I've bought and wore Adidas sized ten football socks for well over five years. Never had an issue with them.
So while Hoover was out shopping in Sports Direct the other day, I asked if she'd pick me up four pairs of football socks, size ten.

On getting home I unfastened a pair and tried them on, they wouldn't fit over my ankles!

This weekend, I took them back to my local branch.
After looking for a bigger size, they had no stock.

I returned them to the counter for a refund, as I need them for my work and would have to buy from elsewhere.
Pretty straight forward I thought?
Sports Direct's store manager didn't want to know.

"These are all size ten!"
- They may say size ten on the labelling, but they will not fit over my ankles, so they are not size ten.
"If it says size ten on the label, then they are size ten!"
- I've bought dozens of pairs of Adidas football socks over the past few years, never had an issue with them before, these new size ten socks won't fit over my ankles.
Unless my feet have suddenly grown, which they have not, as my both pairs of my size ten football boots continue to fit me fine, then these are not size ten.
"We sell loads of these without any complaints..."
- I cannot get them over my ankles, as they are labelled as "Football socks," I would think they would fit me (being a size ten), they would also have room to put shinpads and / or ankle guards on underneath them?
This is not possible as I cannot even get them over my feet without any guards or pads on. As such they are clearly "Not fit for purpose"
"I'm not giving you a refund for these and in any case, you've unfastened one of the pairs!"
- How am I supposed to try them on when they are fastened?
"We don't refund open stock..."
- If you do not offer a refund, then you are in breach of my statutory rights!
"No I am not, our store returns policy says..."
- My statutory rights state if a product is not fit for the purpose they are sold, then a refund, exchange or replacement should be given. As you have two stores without bigger items available, I require a refund.
"Our store returns policy is that we do not need to offer a refund, you'll have to write to our Head Office!"
- So you're refusing to refund?
"Yes!"

I walked out.
I then contacted their customer services...

"We do not offer refunds on items bought in stores!"
- That's a breach of my statutory rights, as the product is not fit for purpose, you are selling labelled goods as fitting a size ten, they clearly do not fit a size ten, so a refund is required, as the goods are not fit for purpose.
"We don't deal with stores, you'll have to go to the store as it's at the manager's discretion if they offer a refund!"
- The store manager says I have to come to you at Head Office.
"It's the store manager whom decides, a refund is given at his discretion"
- He says it's you whom decide!
"I've explained our position, I'm terminating the chat session, goodbye!"

There you have it.
A simple process, over complicated and Sports Direct's Head Office staff and store manager, refusing to uphold my statutory rights.
24 hours have passed on their twitter account, they cannot be bothered to answer.
Sports Direct will not refund on shop bought items that are clearly not fit for purpose.
They are not interested.

Perhaps Sports Direct's magical "sale prices" should also be investigated by Trading Standards?

Fair to say, I won't be using them ever again.
A disgraceful company.

Looking around for a wide angle, manual lens for my 70d, I was drawn to the OM range of lenses, which many baye sellers claim can be adapted to fit my camera.

So after much research into picture quality, etc, I opted for an Olympus OM G.Zuiko 28mm f3.5 wide angle lens.

Ideal I thought. Reasonable price, easy to adapt and great for pics and filming.
I picked one up cheap, in great condition. Ordered the adapter from a UK seller and waited for them to arrive.

It came today and the lens is ace.
However, the adapter is the problem.
It has a pin inside the adapter ring, which is designed to hold the aperture preview spring loaded lever, to open position.
Problem is, the pin stops before the lever when fitting the adapter, so basically, does absolutely nothing.
I've tried unsuccessfully for hours to get it to work, changed the way I fit the adapter, etc. Nothing has worked.

Perhaps I've bought the wrong one?
Nope, all the ebay listings show the same layout of adapter, along with advertising that it works with the Canon 70d. It does not.

When the lens is on the camera, it is wide open at f3.5 with an aperture preview button to the bottom of the lens, that when pushed allows the lens to be stopped down to f16.

Problem 1:
If control of aperture can only be accessed by pushing a button, how can you possibly know which f stop number is in use?
Problem 2:
Having to push this button at the same time as focusing and the shutter button is problematic for the user.
Problem 3:
Using the canon 70d and this lens with a tripod is not possible. As the base of the lens is where the button is situated, then access would be denied to it, when the tripod plate is on the camera.
Problem 4:
What does the insert pin actually do? It comes into no contact with either of the spring levers inside the rear of the lens.
Problem 5:
As this aperture preview button is at the base of the lens, it makes it completely useless for filming with the 70d.
Problem 6:
To do any filming, would have to be at f3.5 (wide open) and hand held.

I really wish that this misleading advertising was stopped.
It does not work with the Canon 70d.

UPDATE:

I took the lens apart to try and negate the spring clip, that the adapter's pin was stopping before.
I took the spring out, tried it.
Put the spring back in, tried it.
I put tape around the silver plate of the lens, to hold the preview button in, tried it.
I bent the pin of the adapter slightly upwards, bingo!

I got another bit of turn from the adapter and the spring preview clip is pushed across to allow manual changing of the aperture ring.
I must have had a slightly raised rear cover of the lens which prevents the adapter from going all the way around. It remains a very tight fit, so if I want to use another Olympus lens with the camera, I'll have to buy another adapter.

Lowering standards of general footwear in recent years, is leading (I believe) to more injuries.

As people are forced into ever more expensive footwear purchases, made on the cheap but retailing at a premium, those buying "regular" footwear are seeing an ever increasing issue with injuries.

Example:

Buying a run of the mill pair of trainers from a so called discount retailer, first the "sale" price is no sale at all (was £28.99 now £19.99, the price they have been for months).
Secondly, the standard of these trainers, are a low quality. Thin insoles, can lead to leg/knee/foot injuries.

Now if I want to pay a premium price, say in the region of £45 to £60, I get slightly better insoles, but not always, regardless of branding.

Of course I could go for, "Running shoes," but these are in excess of £70 and above. Ridiculous prices.

Next up is the classing of footwear.
"These £19.99 trainers are no good for kicking a ball around, they soon fall apart"
Is met with, "They are not designed to play sport in!"
So why are they sold as trainers then? No reply.
They have little to no insoles, they are not fit for running. Kick a ball around or run around a tennis court for 30 minutes, nope, not designed for that either.
Even the £1.99 black or white PE pumps from the markets used to last longer than the cheap alternatives today.

So what options if I want a pair of trainers for comfort at work and to kick a ball around in, on a school yard/dry field then?
"All weather boots"
But the cheaper range (£25 to £35) have the same issues with thin insoles and with "all weather" soles, soon wear out. So not suitable for general wear in the workplace.

How about the expensive, "Running shoes"?
Not designed for kicking a ball around or general wear. Just for running.
But these have the insoles that were previously standard in trainers, with support and prevented injuries.
They are over-priced also, which makes them unavailable to a section of society that would most likely need them.
Children from low income families (and adults) cannot afford to pay such prices.

By definition, trainers are designed for sports of all kinds.
By redefining each style into a separate category (running/football/tennis) etc, they (retailers and manufacturers) are increasing their profits, at the cost of our health.

In my role as a sports coach, I see this more and more.
Active and very active children, enjoying their sports, are picking up injuries to knees, ankles, heels, hips and groins.
Each time, I look at their footwear and without exception, they are in run of the mill basic regular trainers/shoes. Fine for all round wear, but if they play sports regularly, then injuries occur.

One final example to prove this process is at play.
Football boots.
In recent times these too have been recategorised.
It used to be the case, where football boots were football boots. Now they have "soft ground," "grass" and "hard ground" "all weather" football boots.
Each of course with varying prices and levels of quality.
Insole standards are poor.
What used to be, metal studs (times six, four front and two back) are now soft ground boots.
Plastic studs or blades are now hard ground or all weather boots.
The combination of blades and metal studs is also resulting in more injuries.

Metal six studded football boots are designed to not only grip, but allow for turning when the foot is planted.
Boots with six studs and two blades near the middle might look trendy in the shop, but if you are on firm ground, plant your foot and try to turn with your weight on it, it jars your leg/joints and can/often does, cause injuries.

Investigations into the footwear industry are long overdue.
Costs of treating a twisted knee, pain relief, physio, GP visits, support equipment, etc. Soon mount up.
More importantly, as our children compete in sports as they develop/grow, it's vital that they don't suffer these injuries, many of which can be avoided if minimum standards are applied.