Industry Shipperless

1
Industry Shipperless Unregistered Working
GroupWednesday 8th September 10.00amat xoserve
2
Agenda

• Introduction (15 minutes) (Alison Jennings
  Mark Woodward)
• Previous minutes
• Statistical Information (15 minutes) (Mark
  Woodward)
• Overall industry position with unregistered and
  shipperless meter points
• Root Cause (2 hours) (ALL)
• Service laid but no MPRN Conclusions from
  meeting in July
• Inaccurate tagging of services Conclusions from
  meeting in July
• MPRNs created for IGT/LPG sites - Conclusions
  from meeting in July

6 MNC Queries
7 Existing Services not set to DE
8 Existing Services set to DE in error
9 Address Clarity
3
Statistical Information
4
Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless
Sites meter points
5
Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless
Sites meter points

• Latest set of reports issued covering May
  June 09 created
• Shipper Activity
• Sent out 664
• 1 shipper organisation so far responded to July
  reports
• 36 sites responded to (5.42 of total
  sent out)
• Action 90 Those shippers (having approved
  publication) that have provided returns over the
  last couple of
• reports issued
• Scottish Southern
• Scottish Power

Conquest CD Store Confirmation Rejections Service TOTAL Single MPRN's
178 299 13 291 781 664
6
Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless
Sites meter points

• Orphaned Report
• Sent out 16,959 (volume now 15,722)

32 Properties on single postcode 9 confirmed 1 no
activity report 22 orphaned report 22 CD with
meters using gas for just over 12 months

7
Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless
Sites meter points

• Meter Points created lt 12 months

• What are xoserve doing to try and manage the
  unregistered portfolio
• Message sent out August to establish if we have
  the right contacts for the reports and offering
  
• support, assistance and advice.
• Continue to work with Meter Asset Managers
  Although difficult to engage all in the concept
  of
• trying to clean data. (no obligations)
• Continue to work with Utility Infrastructure
  Providers Although difficult to engage all in
  concept of
• trying to clean data. (no obligations)
• Continue to monitor the Connections
  Disconnections Store (CD)
• Desk clean up exercises

8
Analysis of latest movement to the population
from the reports sent out in late November for
October/November 2008
9
Root cause
10
Root Cause Topics To conclude

• Action Would like comments based on the Topics
  discussed so far
• 1. Timescales for mprn creation
  
• 2. xoserve not informed of new
  service job cancellations or deferment
• To Conclude
• Service laid but no MPRN
• Inaccurate tagging of services
• MPRNs created for IGT/LPG sites

11
Root Cause Topics

• 6. MNC queries
• Average raised per month 1,900 around 1,700
  created on UK Link
• Shipper Activity reports (raised on conquest)
  sent out
• May 183 (27.81)
• July - 178 (26.81)
• Dataset December 2009 May 2010
• Just over 10K Created
• 1,180 (12.92) remain unconfirmed
• Problems/issues
• MNC requests are being created, where the M
  Number already exists on UK Link plot/postal or
  slightly
• different address which result in duplicates
  and/or unregistered.
• Requests to create M Numbers not being followed
  through with confirmations.
• UIPs not labeling the services when originally
  fitting the service.

12
Root Cause Topics

• 6. MNC queries (continued)
• Discussions points
• Are there reasons as to why a Shipper requests
  for an M Number to be created and upon completion
• not follow through with confirmation?
• If an end user, with meter, is looking to get a
  shipper and the M Number is not on UK Link, once
• created why would there be no confirmation
  when the customer had effectively been receiving
  free gas
• at the time?
• Is a site visit conducted if an end consumer is
  unable to locate service label (i.e. if
  vulnerable
• customer)?
• Why are we finding so many services with meters
  fitted that are not present on UK link?(8yrs
  after
• labeling was introduced)
• Evidence suggests that meters are being fitted
  before a signed contract is in place or
  alternatively
• following the initial request, the end
  consumer then refuses to sign/ cancels the
  contract? Who should

13
Root Cause Topics

• 7. Existing services not set to DE
• Problems/issues
• Evidence of UIPs laying new service unsure of
  correct procedure to follow in
• order to get the existing MPRN set to DE or
  who to report them too.
• Risk of duplicates existing on UK-Link
• Increased rejection volumes for UIP MPRN
  creations as the site already exists
• and may be a genuine MPRN creation for new
  service (also linked to when a
• new mprn should be requested)
• ISO queries raised by shippers resulting in the
  Networks having to carry out
• Live/ Dead checks on site at a cost.
• Networks not being informed about setting meter
  points to DE

14
Root Cause Topics

• 7. Existing services not set to DE (continued)
• Discussions points
• What is the correct procedure for setting an
  MPRN to DE
• What is the correct procedure when a service
  requires an M Number created and when to use the
• existing M Number (Linked to discussion under
  topic 3)
• Should xoserve be creating new M Numbers with
  an existing live M Number

15
Root Cause Topics

• 8. Existing services set to DE in error or
  legitimately
• Conducting some analysis on DE reports to
  determine how many have new live MPRNs present
  on UK-link that are unregistered
• Problems/issues
• Shippers not utilising the Dead Portfolio sent
  out monthly
• Shippers using old service MPRN and updating
  with a meter exchange, thus
• leaving the new MPRN unregistered.
• Unnecessary MPRN creations adding to existing
  volumetric
• If a site is set to DE in error a new MPRN may
  never be created for the site unless xoserve is
  informed

16
Root Cause Topics

• Discussions points
• Are shippers reviewing the Dead portfolios
  issued monthly?
• What is the procedure when a new MPRN should be
  created?
• What should the procedure be with the old
  service MPRN on re-lays where a
• new MPRN is created?
• Are UIPs aware of the what should happen to
  the data when dealing with
• the old service MPRN?
• Can networks only set the MPRN to DE if they
  are made aware of it?
• Can we avoid shippers carrying out exchanges on
  the old MPRN before it is set to DE
• status

17
Root Cause Topics

• 9. Address Clarity
• UNC Queries (Address amendments prior to
  ownership)
• Data from January10 to May10
• 1,460 requests to change address
• 560 (38.36) by UIPs 458 (81.79) Valid, 102
  (18.21) invalid
• 900 (61.64) for shippers prior to ownership
• 787 (87.44) valid, 113 (12.56) invalid
• Of the 787 changes 750 (95.30) now confirmed, 37
  (4.70) not confirmed
• Still conducting analysis on the shipper
  confirmation rejection files and reasons for new
  sites.
• Problems/issues
• At quotation acceptance stage (which could be
  over twelve months before a service goes in the

18
Root Cause Topics

• Problems/issues (continued)
• Increased number of duplicates if address
  details differ
• High confirmation rejection rate on new site
  confirmations due to post code issues
• Changes in address not being communicated to
  xoserve effectively where there is a difference
• between the UIP and developer
• No consistent address format exists between
  industry players
• Increase in the number of no access as unable
  to locate property following site visits
• Increase in unregistered sites as customer may
  provide different address details as to what is
  held on
• UK-Link

19
Root Cause Topics

• Discussions points
• Should xoserve be amending the address, at
  shippers request, prior to ownership?
• Should xoserve be changing the address, to that
  provided by the UIP, in order to make it PAF
  valid or
• to avoid a rejection?
• If UIPs are sending address amendments to
  xoserve is this information being relayed to
  service
• requester?
• Do shippers check with IAD for address
  information prior to submitting a confirmation
  file?