OVO have sent an email about my Direct Debit - Why are you increasing my monthly payment when I’m already in credit?

This doesn’t sound right. If the company pays into your OVO account, it will be used to increase the balance. The balance is taken into account when the DD is calculated. Could you please explain the sentence I quoted? 

That's exactly how I see it too.

In their words because it's not a direct debit, they don't see it as a regular payment because it's a direct transfer.

I'm now £1200 in credit!!

This is why the old system where ACTUAL credit in your account each day was what was used to calculate your DD for the next 365 days. We now have this ridiculous situation where OVO have decided that, for every customer, their billing year ends on March 31st. I am, at present, over £300 in credit and a further £100 will be paid into my OVO account in 5 days time. Even using their DD Calculator and using their £84 minimum payment, even their own calculator does not assess that I will have the required 1 month’s payment in my account, but around 38% more than that. I am not sure whether this is in the spirit of both Ofgem directives about energy companies reducing customer excess balances and discouraging debt. 

Yesterday, Sky News described OVO as a “struggling energy company” about to make 100s of employees redundant in the coming week!

The “struggling” is a bit of a false situation.

OVO, Octopus, and Eon Next are all 3 “struggling” to comply with new'ish ‘Financial Resilience’ rules that Ofgem imposed on all suppliers.

So it's not struggling financially as such, it's a case of not meeting the Ofgem imposed rules.

Those 3 are by no means small startup companies.

So does that suggest established companies have got their financing wrong? - or does it suggest that Ofgem might have been a bit too strict with their ‘Resilience’ rules?

Apples and goats, I’m afraid. The £84 minimum payment is the amount which, if paid on every DD date between now and 31 March, will leave your account with one month’s costs in credit. A month’s costs is the result of this calculation:

Referring to the Plan page,

1. Multiply the FAC by the Unit Rate;
2. Multiply the Standing Charge by 365;
3. Add (1) and (2) to get a projected annual cost;
4. Add 5% for the VAT (e.g. multiply (3) by 1.05);
5. Divide the result of (4) by 12 to get the estimate for one month’s costs within the meaning of the Act.

The minimum payment takes into account your FAC, the current rates, any upgrades and the current balance. There will be some customers for whom the system sometimes aligns perfectly, so that the minimum payment is close to one month’s costs. For most people, most of the time, there will be no such alignment. 

They change the wording of the texts on the DD calculator pages from time to time. I’m not sure the ‘end-of-term-buffer’ has always been called credit for 1 month’s payment; I’m fairly sure it used to be less ambiguous. 

[Watch out for a change to the end date. Last year, it had already happened by this stage in November.]

I know that is the case but, for some reason, OVO are, frequently, singled out whenever there is a problem to be the “headline act”. In the Sky News article, Octopus was mentioned, in passing, but EON Next was not mentioned at all. The whole article appeared to be very anti-OVO. The report also states that OVO’s agreed plan with Ofgem “is likely to include restrictions on taking on new customers while Ovo's finances are placed on a sustainable footing, according to industry sources.” No such details are given for either Octopus or EON Next. This kind of reporting will affect customer confidence in OVO and is not going to attract the new investors they are said to need. 

I totally agree, it does sometimes seem like someone has an axe to grind with OVO, in these news stories.
But TBH I think its just the usual case of reporters dragging as much drama as they can out of any situation and trying to make mountains out of molehills.

The “likely” (read possible but not that likely)  “restriction on taking new customers” will have been trotted out because that is what Ofgem did to Tomato earlier this year.

And many believe that in the final analysis it was that action by Ofgem that doomed Tomato to quickly go bust.
OK they were struggling anyway, but the Ofgem ‘no new customers’ action ensured that they had little to no chance of recovering.
(Was that Ofgems’ actual intention? I’m not going to point the finger, but it does make you wonder).

Except that Deloitte pretty much killed Tomato way before.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09735768/filing-history

Auditors Resignation letter says it all - they pulled the plug because of the Senapt platform.

It is notable however that Deloitte do also mention the Ofgem restriction in their Statement of Reasons for withdrawal as auditors.

They do state: “Whilst not related to our loss of office” - but if that were true then why mention it?

Statements or Reasons shouldn’t mention unrelated matters, they are statements of  the reasons for doing something.

I read that as a bit of lawyer speak weasel wording confirming that the 9th July 2025 Ofgem Provisional Order was the last straw for Deloitte, and definitely a large factor in Deloitte’s decision to resign as auditors.
(Weasel wording because they don’t want to say it outright and thus point a finger at Ofgem).