Price cap increases- To fix or not to fix?

I hopped tariff yesterday from an old Fixed Loyalty to a new one and can confirm that the exit fee doesn’t apply in those circumstances.

However that is not automatic. the exit fees are still shown to the support agent onscreen and the support agent has to manually waive the exit fees.
My support person knew to do that but it sounds like yours didn't know about it until they checked.

The T&Cs for the 1- Year Fixed loyalty plans do change from time to time.
However in this case it’s just a change of wording, and a reduction in exit fees for some who switch to other suppliers.
It still makes it clear that the exit fee applies “If you change your supplier” (ie. they don’t apply if you switch to another OVO plan).
The reason for there being 2 dates showing there for the moment with identical terms (6.1 & 6.2) is because previously the exit fee was £75. That has now changed and it’s now £50 whenever you started your plan.
The one for before 19th Aug will have been left in place for now because people may still have that £75 showing elsewhere on other paperwork, emails, etc. (I did myself). But that £75 is now overriden by the latest T&Cs £50 exit fee, whatever it may say elsewhere.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/1-year-fixed-loyalty-terms/v2

The T&Cs for the 1- Year Fixed loyalty plans do change from time to time.
However in this case it’s just a change of wording, and a reduction in exit fees for some who switch to other suppliers.
It still makes it clear that the exit fee applies “If you change your supplier” (ie. they don’t apply if you switch to another OVO plan).

 

If you compare the current Terms & Conditions with the version I captured three months ago above (which I verified was still available just a few days ago), you'll see that it’s not just a change in wording. The highlighted sentence, “If you change to another OVO fixed tariff, you will not be charged a termination fee,” has been completely removed. In my opinion, the previous version made it much clearer that switching to another OVO fixed tariff would be free of charge. Additionally, since the linked T&C keeps changing while still being labeled as version 2, why not update it to versions 3, 4, etc., so that old emails can accurately refer to the original version?

I agree that this fiddling with the terms is confusing, and very probably illegal. My latest confirmation included a paragraph reading “For the 1 Year Fixed Loyalty tariff, the following terms and conditions also apply.”  There were no following terms and conditions, only a note about the cooling-off period with a remark that leaving after cooling off would trigger an exit fee of £75 if I changed supplier.

I didn’t have the foresight like @samsonluk did to take a hard copy of the T&C, but seeing that the v2 edition has now changed means that OVO have unilaterally altered the contract between us with no notice. They may have decided that the newer terms being apparently more favourable to the customer absolves them of any blame for doing this. It’s not even certain that the revised terms are more favourable, though, since they also include §10.4 of the core terms which are delightfully ambiguous on the subject. It’s also questionable what the amount of any exit fee would be: the confirmation email says £75, the linked T&C page now says £50, while my Plan says £75.

I wonder what the Ombudsman would say were a dispute about exit fees in these circumstances to land on his desk. 

Perhaps one of the mods could extract a comment from OVO’s commercial and/or legal people.

Hey @Firedog, 

I've been looking at this, and from my understanding, under the T&Cs of the 1 year fixed loyalty plan, it states - 8.1 Changes to these terms and conditions – we may change these terms and conditions at any time in line with our Core Terms.

The core terms state, 10.4 - On some energy plans, you may have to pay an exit fee if you cancel your energy plan before the fixed term expires. We'll always let you know if an exit fee applies, and these will be detailed in the terms for the relevant energy plan or in your plan confirmation letter.

So, from my understanding, they're both linked, as the plan terms state that we may make changes to the plan terms only if they're in line with our core terms, which they are. 

If you still want me to get a legal response, I can flag this and see what I can do for you. 

I hope this helps 😊

Thanks, Chris.

Of course there’s legal wriggle-room. That’s why I’m not a lawyer!  

However, I’m sure you’ll agree that this is either wrong or ambiguous:

[ETA: refer to Core Terms §10.4]  

“You won’t have to pay an exit fee if:

(unless you’ve already entered into a contract with us for a new fixed‑term energy plan);”

To me that ‘unless’ clause means ‘you will have to pay an exit fee if you’ve already entered into a contract with us for a new fixed‑term energy plan.’

How do you read it?

Hey @Firedog, 

I‘d be a terrible lawyer so I know where you stand! 

I’ve stared at this all afternoon since our call, and I keep going down different pathways. With my training, I know most of the circumstances in which I would apply an exit fee, but looking at it from a customer perspective, as you said, it’s not clear. I’m going to take this away and get other perspectives on it. I’ll drop an update as soon as I have it 🙂

Language, phrases, and even individual words, can mean different things in legislation (law) than they do in general everyday usage.

That often causes confusion in things like the clauses in T&Cs. To a lawyer a particular word in a particular place means one thing, but if you are not a lawyer you may not see/know that and think that it means something else.

At the risk of getting long-

I'm trying to think of a good example. The best I can do at the monent is one that keeps cropping up now and again on benefits advice fora - bank charges.

Benefits legislation prohibits banks from making  ‘charges’ on accouts  that are solely serviced by benefits payments. ie. The only money going into the account is from benefits.

You often get someone who thinks that means banks shouldn't ‘charge’ any interest at all on an overdraft if your only income is benefits.

However, in banking law it's an Overdraft  Fee not an Overdraft Charge (never mind what word is used on your statement, legally it's a Fee).

‘Charge’ has a specific meaning in banking legislation - it's the taking of money from one account to pay a debit on a different account.

Ps.That's not as long as I thought it might get - probably because I'm not a lawyer qualifying every word/phrase used.

You just point out the key issue here. Let me illustrate the concerns in greater detail with the following example:

As a customer who signed up for the 1 Year Fixed Loyalty tariff in April, I received a confirmation email that included a statement indicating that the relevant terms and conditions apply to the tariff. However, the link provided in the email directed me to a webpage instead of an attached PDF document. At the time of signing, when I clicked on the link in April, the terms and conditions clearly stated that no exit fee would apply under condition A.

Recently, I clicked on the same link provided in the email to review the terms and conditions again, and I was surprised to find that the content had changed. The link now directs to a webpage with updated terms and conditions that include an exit fee under the same condition A, which were not present when I signed the contract.

The problem here is that the terms and conditions linked in the confirmation email are a "moving target." They can be updated or altered at any time by OVO without notice, making it impossible for customers to retain access to the exact terms and conditions that were in place when they agreed to the contract. This raises several concerns:

1. Lack of Evidence: Since the original terms and conditions were not provided as a PDF attachment or any other fixed document, customers have no way to verify or present evidence of the terms they agreed to at the time of signing. This puts customers at a significant disadvantage in the event of a dispute.

2. Potential for Disputes: If there is an argument between OVO and the customer regarding the applicability of an exit fee or any other terms, the customer has no way to prove that they agreed to a different set of terms. This could lead to a breakdown in trust and potentially legal disputes, as the customer may argue that the terms they agreed to at the time of signing should be honored.

3. Transparency and Trust: While it is understood that OVO may update its terms and conditions over time, applying these changes retroactively to existing contracts without providing a permanent and accessible record of the original terms undermines transparency and trust. Customers expect that the terms they agreed to at the time of signing will be honored throughout the duration of their contract.

To avoid such issues and to maintain trust with your customers, I respectfully suggest that OVO consider the following steps:

• Provide Fixed Documentation: Ensure that customers receive a PDF or similar fixed document of the terms and conditions at the time of signing, which they can keep for their records. This would serve as the definitive version of the contract terms.

• Maintain Archived Versions: If terms and conditions are to be hosted online, provide an archive or version history so that customers can always access the version of the terms that applied at the time they signed their contract.

• Clear Communication: Clearly communicate to customers that changes to terms and conditions will not affect existing contracts unless expressly agreed upon by both parties.

I believe taking these steps will not only prevent potential disputes but also reinforce customer trust in OVO Energy's commitment to fairness and transparency.

I think the problem with the misleading/ambiguous section I highlighted is simply one of formatting. The way it is currently, the unindented let-out clause (unless ...) applies to the closest unindented clause before it. It’s probably supposed to refer only to the phrase or possibly all three bulleted phrases immediately preceding it. We can’t tell. 
  

I once learned that indentations have meaning in legal texts, which is why, for example, the first line of every separate paragraph is indented. If it weren’t, a new paragraph beginning at the top of a page could be understood to be a continuation of the one at the bottom of the preceding one. This could lead to misinterpretation of ‘the preceding paragraph’ with potentially unintended consequences. 

At the moment I am on a variable tariff and am trying to work out what my new prices will be if a stay on the variable. I know it's going up 10% but do I need to also include the 5% VAT to get the overall total.