The codes are extremely lengthy and overly complex. This acts as a barrier both to participation in the industry and to code reform. Understanding the codes takes significant resources, which can disincentivise engagement from new entrants to the market, particularly smaller players.
Empowered and accountable code management — incorporating mechanisms to ensure that appropriate code changes are implemented to deliver the strategic direction, and that these changes are progressed in a clear and logical manner.
Code simplification and consolidation — simplifying codes to ensure that they are suitably adaptive to a changing industry and more accessible to code parties. The Consultation builds on the Consultation and sets out two alternative reformed governance models, summarised below. In this role, Ofgem would develop and annually publish a strategic direction for all codes, to be implemented by the code managers.
Ofgem would hold code managers to account via their licences. Specifically, a code manager licence and tender process would be developed to manage potential conflicts of interests. As the strategic body, Ofgem would grant licences and monitor and where appropriate enforce the licence conditions of the code managers.
Ofgem would determine whether or not material code changes should be approved. Code managers would be appointed via a competitive tender process and those with conflicts of interest would not be eligible.
BEIS and Ofgem propose that primary legislation would set out the framework for tendering, including powers to make secondary legislation which would provide for the tendering process and selection criteria. Code managers would replace existing code administrators and take over the majority of roles currently performed by industry-led panels.
They would also decide upon non-material code changes and make recommendations in respect of material code changes. Under Model 1, Ofgem as the strategic body would be able to directly develop or change codes.
In addition, any interested person could suggest a change to the code manager. The code manager would then decide on the materiality of the change. For non-material changes, the code manager would manage the process, develop the code change and decide on the approval of the change.
For material changes, the code manager would still manage the process and develop the code change but would make a recommendation to the strategic body instead of a decision. Ofgem as the strategic body would subsequently decide on the approval of the material change. See diagram below for a visual overview of the process under Model 1.
Under Model 2, the strategic function and code manager function would be combined, meaning that there would be no separate code managers. Ofgem would retain some oversight and decision-making in line with its duties as regulator. The IRMB would then decide on the materiality of the change. For non-material changes, the IRMB would manage the code change process with the support of an external administrative service provider and would decide on the approval of the change.
See diagram below for a visual overview of the process under Model 2. The Consultation considers that regulatory accountability and the appropriate route of appeal for decisions ultimately for both models could fall in to one of two ways:. This route would mean all strategic body decisions on code changes would be subject only to judicial review, including where the decision of the strategic body aligns with the recommendations of the code manager.
BEIS and Ofgem note that this would be simple to effect and be relatively future proof as it would avoid gaps emerging between legislation and the substance of the codes themselves as they are developed or consolidated. The Consultation acknowledges concerns that this option could weaken existing licensee protections because it provides a generally less intrusive standard of review and does not necessarily involve economic and other technical expertise.
However, Ofgem and BEIS point out that judicial review applies to many code changes already and has been utilised in other areas, for example the retail price cap. Ombudsman Services has been appointed as an ombudsman and investigation service for the Green Deal. You can find out more information in the governments Green Deal Code of Practice.
District Heating, sometimes known as Communal Heating, is a heat supply that is an alternative to gas. This is usually for a period in excess of 20 years, which means that a customer cannot transfer their supply to an alternative energy source, such as gas.
To ensure that District Heating customers receive an efficient service from their heat supplier, a scheme called Heat Trust was created in November Heat Trust sets the customer service standards and customer protection requirements it expects District Heating suppliers that are a member of its service to provide.
Ombudsman Services has been appointed as an ombudsman and investigation service for the Heat Trust Scheme. They are:. If you have a complaint with one of the above suppliers, we recommend that you contact the company in the first instance. If your complaint remains unresolved after eight weeks, you can escalate to us. Start your complaint online. We use cookies to give you the best experience. By continuing to use our website, you are consenting to the use of cookies as set out in our policy.
Find out more. Return to homepage. How it works. Can I Complain? About us. Home Back Can I complain? Energy complaints. We handle cases across the entire energy sector and have done for over 12 years. If you have an unresolved complaint about your supplier, we may be able to help. Ombudsman Services. Common complaints in the energy sector. The most common types of energy complaints are about: Gas and electricity bills. Problems that arise as a result of switching energy supplier.
The way an energy product or service has been sold, including door step sales. The supply of energy to a home. Micro generation and Feed-in-Tariffs. Problems relating to the provision of services under the Green Deal.
Network Providers when there is a loss of supply or a problem with a connection or repair. Where contracts have been signed for installations in accordance with version 4. Microgeneration Certification Scheme MCS standards make sure installers meet a quality mark and demonstrate compliance to industry standards.
The microgeneration installation standard outlines the requirements for MCS installers undertaking the supply, design, installation, set to work, commissioning, and handover of microgeneration heat pump systems.
For heat pumps with a first commissioning date before 31 July , they should meet version 4. For heat pumps with a first commissioning date on or after 31 July , they can meet either version 4.
For heat pumps with a first commissioning date on or after 30 October , it depends on when your contract started:. Please enable JavaScript in your web browser to get the best experience. Check who's taken over your energy supply Guidance and support How you're protected when energy firms collapse.
English Cymraeg. Changes to the scheme.
0コメント