Response to Ofgem consultation on smart meter guaranteed standards of performance

The concentration of lower installation rates in rural and remote communities, thereby reducing consumer choice, and access to smart meter consumer benefits, risks compounding other affordability challenges for these communities, especially where the cost of living is higher and the prevalence of fuel poverty is greater[2]. While Guaranteed Standards alone will not remedy this imbalance, ensuring that rural consumers enjoy equal and improved consumer protections will improve consumer confidence in the smart meter programme in these areas.

Finally, we recommend Ofgem keeps under review its position on VWAN not being a qualifying “technically eligible” solution for the time being. The rollout of VWAN connections from 2026 onwards has the potential to provide greater smart meter connectivity for rural consumers in Scotland, with poor cellular coverage and improving broadband infrastructure creates favourable conditions for VWAN adoption. As suppliers improve adoption of VWAN tools, GSOPs should be updated to reflect the current state of the market and encourage the usage of VWAN tools in these previously unconnected areas.

Question 4. Do you have any comments regarding the drafting of the Statutory Instrument (see appendix one) on this standard

While Consumer Scotland acknowledges the need for provisions to ensure consumers do not game compensation by refusing appointments in bad-faith, there is a risk of unintended consequences where suppliers are not able to offer sufficient appointments.

The RTS phase out has illustrated the challenges consumers have faced in getting appointments, either before phase out deadlines, or in some cases at all, in areas where suppliers have limited meter engineering resources. As highlighted in Consumer Scotland’s previous consultation response, and reported at the Ofgem RTS roundtables, consumers in remote, rural and island areas of Scotland have been affected by this challenge where there is a lack of skilled engineer support.

The proposed regulation 3(1A)(b) creates particular risks where there are limited appointment slots offered, for example if suppliers are constrained by resources, as we have seen in the RTS phase out, and can only offer 1 or 2 inconvenient slots. This would reflect the similar obligation on suppliers contained in the Retail Energy Code, where suppliers must provide a “range of installation appointment time bands”[3]. This requirement for a range of appointments is not reflected in the proposed regulation.

While a breach of the Retail Energy Code constitutes a breach of supplier licence conditions, we recommend aligning the requirement for a reasonable number of appointments within the proposed regulation, to ensure customers benefit from appropriate and timely recourse only provided by GSOPs, and to promote consistency in consumer protections and supplier obligations between the GSOPs and the Retail Energy Code.

Wording of the proposed regulation 3(1A)(b) should be amended to recognise the need for a supplier to offer a consumer a variety of appointment slots, such as “where the customer has refused the offer of a range of first-time smart meter appointments…”, reflecting the wording of the Retail Energy Code. Alternatively, the regulation could be more precise and  prescribe a number of appointments over a prescribed period (e.g. 3 appointments over a 4 week period), however we acknowledge this may not sufficiently take into account the need for some supplier operational flexibility.

Smart Meter Installation Failures

Question 5. Do you agree the correct approach for this Guaranteed Standard is to amend existing regulation 3, rather than implement a new individual standalone regulation?

We welcome Ofgem’s proposals to make regulations clearer and meet its intention as set out in paragraph 4.15 if the consultation document. We acknowledge the pre-existing requirements on suppliers in regulation 9, and welcome the additional clarity in the proposed regulation 9A. We have provided additional wording in our answer to question 6 below to clarify the types of installation appointments that are covered.

Question 6. Do you have any comments regarding the drafting of the Statutory Instrument (see appendix one) on this standard?

The wording of regulation 9A could be improved to make it clear that it applies to both first-time and replacement installations, in line with Ofgem’s intentions outlined in the consultation.

It is not readily apparent from the wording in regulation 9A, “to install a smart meter” whether replacement installations are also covered, especially as Ofgem itself makes a distinction between “first-time installations” and “replacement smart meter appointments” in both the policy and statutory consultations, even though the regulator’s intention is that both types of appointments should be covered.

This may confuse consumers as to when their right to compensation is triggered. Additionally, this wording will be increasingly important as programmes to replace early generation smart meters take place in advance of the 2033 switch off of the 2g and 3g signals. Therefore, it is important this wording is clear and unambiguous well in advance of this deadline.

Additional wording, such as “Where the purpose of the appointment is to provide an initial install, or a replacement install, of a smart meter…”, or a term such as “any install or replacement of a smart meter”, is recommended to ensure there is clarity that compensation is triggered should a supplier fail either an initial smart meter installation or a replacement appointment.

Investigating Smart Meter Operational Issues

Question 7. Do you agree the correct approach for this Guaranteed Standard is to amend existing regulations 4 and 5, rather than implement a new individual standalone regulation?

We broadly support Ofgem’s proposals to include a definition that recognises issues with not only the smart meter, but also the In-Home Display and a customer’s bill, as is covered in the definition of “not operating as intended”.

We welcome the maintenance of a 5-day requirement to communicate the core issue with the smart meter to a consumer, ensuring that consumers are kept informed about the precise nature of the issue with their smart meter system.

We would like to see Ofgem explore whether the onus should wholly be on the consumer to notify the supplier when the smart meter is not operating as intended, as set out in regulation 4(1)(c). In cases where smart meter readings are not reaching a supplier, and a supplier is required to produce estimated bills, it should be apparent to a supplier that a smart meter is not operating as intended and a trigger to investigate operational issues should begin after a period of non-operation.

Question 8. Do you have any comments regarding the drafting of the Statutory Instrument (see appendix one) on this standard?

No comment.

Smart Meters Not Operating in Smart Mode

Question 9. Do you agree this should be a new standalone regulation rather than an amendment to an existing regulation?

We welcome Ofgem’s proposals to make a new standalone regulation relating to “not operating in smart mode”. The proposed revised definition of “not operating in smart mode” is consumer centric, recognising that it is important that supplier are sufficiently incentivised to remedy issues that prevent consumer’s ability to realise the benefits of smart meters, e.g. accurate billing, real-time usage information, and flexible tariffs that require automatic meter reads being transmitted to suppliers.

However, we are still concerned that the 90-day threshold is a long period of time for a smart meter to not operate in smart mode. Roughly three months of not communicating correctly will have a materially impact on consumer’s access to smart-enabled tariffs and products, and the provided compensation is unlikely to cover the potential lost savings that consumers will miss out on if they are unable to access, for example, flexible tariff savings.

We recommend Ofgem keep this threshold under review, and consider reducing it to 45 or 60 days, to provide suppliers with an ambitious target and ensure consumers do not lose out on the benefits of smart enabled tariffs and products, and consequently undermining confidence in the smart meter programme.

We welcome Ofgem acknowledging that 365 days may not be the correct timeframe for the repeat repayment of compensation in cases where smart meters are not operating in smart mode. As we outlined in our previous response, we were sceptical that this timeframe provided sufficient incentives to suppliers to fix problems, especially in the context of Government statistics that illustrated that around 10% of smart meters installed were not operating in smart mode, potentially indicating a not insubstantial problem with smart meter functionality.

However, Ofgem should keep under review whether the new proposed time frame of 6 months again provides a sufficient incentive to suppliers. The benefit of a 90 day timeframe would be that it ensures suppliers do not de-prioritise cases after the initial 90 days, until they start to get close to the 6-month deadline. This could leave consumers in a limbo after their first compensation payment for nearly half a year. A shorter timeframe would encourage suppliers to maintain their efforts to remedy smart meter issues, ultimately improving the consumer experience.

Question 10. Do you agree providing additional 30 days to resolve smart meter issues relating to comms hub and WAN issues under the DCC, is the right approach?

As noted in our response to the previous question, we are concerned that lengthy timeframes will mean that consumers do not benefit from smart-enabled products and tariffs. While recognising the operational practicalities of suppliers working with the DCC, 120 days is a long period for a consumer to be without smart functionality. This could mean a consumer misses out significant savings from smart enabled tariffs, especially if these 120 days fall around autumn and/or winter where household consumption peaks.

Therefore, as above, we recommend Ofgem review this target and investigate if it can be reduced to ensure consumers do not need to wait considerable periods of times for remedies.

Question 11. Do you agree with the proposal to implement this Guaranteed Standard over a longer timeframe?

We acknowledge Ofgem’s and suppliers need to implement this Guaranteed Standard over a long timeframe. However, the proposed implementation date, starting April 2026, has the potential to impact the RTS phase out and Ofgem must investigate how this might impact supplier resources needed to replace RTS meters.

The RTS phase out programme will pause its group code switch-off in Scotland from September 2025 until spring 2026, as part of its risk-based approach that RTS meter switch-offs during cold winter months would risk consumer wellbeing and safety, especially for consumers in vulnerable circumstances.

While supplier appointments for meter switches will continue during the autumn/winter 2025, consumer groups have reported in Ofgem’s RTS roundtables that some consumers are hesitant to switch meter during the winter months, for example if they cannot access an equivalent post-RTS tariffs from their supplier, and end up paying more during the months of their highest usage.

Therefore, there may still be need for considerable metering resource for the RTS phase out in Q1 and Q2 of 2026 when this proposed GSOP is to come into effect. Ofgem should continue to work with consumer groups, charities, and suppliers to monitor the RTS phase out, and review how the introduction of this GSOP in April 2026 will impact the RTS group code switch-off.

Question 12. Do you have any comments regarding the drafting of the Statutory Instrument (see appendix one) on this standard

No comment.

Non-Domestic

Question 13. Do you agree with the smart meter Guaranteed Standards applying to smart meters and microbusinesses only?

We support the extension of these Guaranteed Standards to microbusinesses, however Ofgem should also consider expanding these Guaranteed Standards to small businesses.

Due to the size and resources of microbusinesses, they may face similar difficulties to domestic consumers when dealing with smart meter issues.  For example, accurate billing and avoiding estimated charges is necessary to avoid disruption to a businesses’ cash flow and operational costs. This has been recognised in other regulatory framework where Ofgem has extended various consumer protections to both micro and small businesses. For example, as of December 2024 small businesses gained access to the Energy Ombudsman’s dispute resolution services, with Ofgem recognising that both business categories face similar challenges and required comparable safeguards[4]. Therefore, we recommend Ofgem consider providing a consistent regulatory approach and extend the current proposed Guaranteed Standards to small businesses as well.

Question 14. Do you have any comments regarding the drafting of the Statutory Instrument (see appendix one) regarding microbusiness consumers?

No comment.