Ofgem to probe supplier treatment of microbusinesses

Ofgem has launched an investigation into Maxen Power Supply, focussing on the fair treatment of businesses and the rates they are charged.

The regulator said it will consider the “supplier’s compliance with rules around treating microbusinesses fairly, organisational capability, whether deemed rates are unduly onerous and customer transfer blocking”.

Specifically, the investigation will examine whether Maxen Power Supply is in compliance with the requirements of Standard Licence Conditions (SLC) 0A, 4A, 7.3, 7A and 14.

SLC 0A relates to treating microbusinesses fairly, requiring suppliers to act in a fair, honest, transparent, appropriate and professional manner. SLC 4A requires suppliers to maintain operational capability, particularly to meeting regulatory requirements and mitigate risk to customers.

SLC7.3 provides that where a customer is supplied based on a deemed contract relationship, the supplier is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the terms of its deemed contracts are not unduly onerous. SLC 7A relates to the supply to Micro Business consumers, and Finally, SLC 14 prohibits customer transfer blocking.

Maxen Power is a UK based non-domestic utilities supplier based in east London.

Earlier this year, the firm was fined £120,000 after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ICO received more than 100 complaints about unsolicited marketing calls to businesses and people registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) and Corporate Telephone Preference Service (CTPS), which operate a “do not call” register.

Complaints indicated that people were receiving multiple calls on the same day, receiving repeated calls despite requests to opt-out, and were subject to “aggressive” marketing tactics causing potential financial damage.

The complaints also showed that Maxen Power Supply was making calls from overseas call centres that purported to be from National Grid or the recipient’s existing energy supplier.

The company denied responsibility for the complaints raised, claiming these international call centres were independent contractors and third party intermediaries.