Shipperless & Unregistered Workgroup

Wednesday 17th September 2014

Agenda

• Introduction• Previous Actions• Statistical Information – Update on S&U Reports• Shipperless and Unregistered Sites Clearance Project Update• GDNs Updates• Ofgem Query – Responsibility for a Meter at a Shipperless Site• Discussion Points:

– Withdrawn Sites with Live MPRNs with No Meter Attached– Legitimately Unregistered

• Contacts for 424, 425 and 410a• MNC MPRN Creation Process Changes - GDNs• Multiple MPRN Creation Requests• A.O.B.

Previous Actions

Outstanding Actions

Outstanding actions from previous meetings

Ref. Date Raised Description Action Status

150 01/07/13

All Shippers to provide contact details for Networks to use to provide pre-notifications of GSR site visits or end user letters.Update – 01/11/13 Some Shippers have provided contact details as requested but many are yet to respond.Update – 29/01/14 Some Shippers are still yet to respond. Reminders will be issued via Xoserve’s Customer Engagement Team.Update – 06/05/14 Some Shippers are still yet to respond. Reminders will be issued via Xoserve’s Customer Engagement Team.

All Shippers

Ongoing

158 29/01/14

Networks to consider the request from DW to engage with Shippers and to create MPRNs at their request.Update – 06/05/14 NW requested an update on the data previously provided.

Networks Ongoing

Outstanding Actions

Actions from meeting held on 06/05/14

Ref. Date Raised Description Action Status

161 06/05/14

CL (Eon) to provide examples of instances where an End User was told a site was Shipperless when in fact they were IGT Sites’Update – 22/05/14 CL provided an example for Xoserve to Investigate.

CL (Eon) Closed

162 06/05/14

Xoserve to investigate what information was given on IGT Sites.Update – 23/05/14 Xoserve investigated the issue by re-enacting the enquiry. This was done on 2 separate occasions, and the correct response was given. However, the management of the Call Centre was engaged and the correct line of information and advice in these circumstances was confirmed with him.

Xoserve Closed

Statistical Information

Statistical InformationUnregistered

Sites Dec-13 Jan-14

Feb-Jul 2014*

Description

Shipper Activity 106 233 812*

Shipper specific activity which suggests intention to confirm i.e., Confirmation rejection, Meter Asset update to the C&D store, ConQuest and CMS contacts to create the MPRN.

Orphaned

TOTAL 14,819 13,470 11,510* Following a response of no further interest, or where no response is received. They also include MPRN's where a service has been completed and in some instances a meter already installed.

With Meter 5,903 6,128 5,128*

Shipperless Sites -

Shipper (PTS)

GSR 1,228 1,192

1,454*MPRN's which have previously been confirmed but the meter is now removed. Information provided (via DN)

suggests that either the existing meter is still on site or a new meter has been fitted. GSS are identified when a YES

is found in the Live Supply Point? column.

GSS 424 406

Shipperless Sites - Industry (SSP) 4,891 4,891 4,271*

No Activity 871 815 4,152*MPRN's created on UK Link where no shipper activity has ever been recorded and remain unconfirmed.

Legitimately Unregistered

38,290 38,759 35,570*MPRN's which represent: Vacant sites / No Gas meter but live service / Service still in planning stage.

Meter Point created less than 12 months 33,916 32,040 39,487*

Unconfirmed MPRN's with a creation date <12 months. If not confirmed they will gradually feed into the above 'pots'.

TOTAL 21,915 20,601 22,199* •S&U Database is still unavailable. These figures were created by other means.

End User Letter Exercise Update

Introduction

• In response to Ofgem’s open letter to the Gas Distribution Networks regarding their concern over the existing population of Unregistered Sites, the GDN’s produced a plan which aimed to reduce this population.

• In the plan narrative, the GDNs stated that in order to address the issue, a concerted effort by all industry participants was required.

• The plan set out a series of activities spanning 12 months, starting in November 2013 and culminating in October 2014.

• In November 2013, Xoserve collated records of all Shipperless and Unregistered Sites that had been identified on the Sites and Meters Database. This dataset was “ring-fenced” to form the base data for the exercise.

• The dataset was categorised into the usual reporting “pots” that are issued to industry participants on a monthly basis.

• The pots were issued to Shippers, UIPs, and Networks with the request for each party to investigate the records within the dataset and to report their findings back to Xoserve by the end of December.

Actions Carried Out To Date

• A reminder was issued to Shippers and UIPs in mid December, and Xoserve’s Shipper Engagement team contacted Shippers on an individual basis to discuss the project and to urge them to reply.

• By the end of December 2013, 5 UIPs and 8 Shippers had replied.

• We received subsequent replies after the deadline and we were able to include these in our analysis.

Actions Carried Out To Date

• In the meantime, Xoserve had engaged in an exercise to investigate possible data cleansing methods that could be used to clean the data before embarking on the End User Letter component of the GDN Plan which was scheduled to commence in February 2014.

• Xoserve explored different approaches to data cleansing.– System Updates– Plot Addresses– Group Contracts– Duplicates– Large AQs– Age Analysis

Actions Carried Out To Date

Proposed Xoserve Data Cleansing

• We found that data cleansing options available to Xoserve were time consuming and ineffective.

• Additional information available to Shippers and Networks made their activities more effective in comparison.

• Xoserve used available systems to remove sites that have been confirmed, and sites with a Meter Point Status of DE or EX.

• Xoserve removed all sites with plot addresses and endeavoured to find alternative postal addresses.

• Xoserve endeavoured to find duplicate MPRNs and remove them from the dataset. (This is only possible where a MSN is evident). Where a duplicate is established, the erroneous MPRN will be set to EX.

Ring-fenced Data Set

 Category Number of Sites

Shipper Activity 242

OrphanedTOTAL 15,034

With Meter

Shipperless Sites - Shipper (PTS)

GSR 1,573

GSS

Shipperless Sites - Industry (SSP) 4,756

No Activity 1,459

Legitimately Unregistered

Meter Point created less than 12 months

Total Shipperless Sites 6,329

Total Unregistered Sites 16,735

TOTAL 23,064

Lettering

• Xoserve made the necessary amendments to the base data to create the datasets for producing End User Letters.

• The feedback from Shippers, UIPs and GDNs, and data cleansing conducted by Xoserve was taken into consideration.

• Letters were sent to 17,108 Shipperless and Unregistered sites over a number of tranches which started in March and finished in July.

• Each site received a letter explaining that a gas supply was recorded on the central Sites and Meters Database but did not have a gas Supplier recorded for it. The end user was requested to provide Xoserve with information regarding the gas supply at their property.

Lettering

• If no response was received after two weeks, a second letter was issued.

• The information from the End User Letter responses was used to advise what action was required to resolve the Shipperless / Unregistered record.

• A number of records were passed to Shippers associated with the Suppliers named by the End Users.

• Any remaining records that were not resolved by “Desk-top” investigation or through the Lettering Process, were passed to the relevant GDN.

Lettering Results

 Number of Sites

Lettered%age

Total Starting Dataset 17108 100%

Live Confirmations(LI, CO)

1406 8.2%

EX (inc. To be set to EX) 1043 6.1%

DE 392 2.3%

Legitimately Unregistered (CA/CL et al)

235 1.4%

Passed to Shipper 506 3%

Passed to Network (inc. Possible Duplicates)

13760 80.4%

Total Unresolved 14266 83.4%

Total Resolved 2842 16.6%

Shipperless Datasets

  SSP PTS Total

Starting Base Data 4756 1573 6329

Live Confirmations(LI, CO, RQ)

765 544 1309

EX 280 41 321

DE 304 71 375

Remaining 3407 917 4324

%age Reduction 28.4% 41.7% 31.6%

Unregistered Datasets

  Orphaned No ActivityShipper Activity

Total

Starting Base Data 15034 1459 242 16735

Live Confirmations(LI, CO, RQ)

2239 358 58 2655

EX 1542 77 20 1639

DE 376 19 5 400

Remaining 10877 1005 159 12041

%age Reduction 27.7% 31.1% 34.3% 28.0%

Shipperless and Unregistered Dataset

  Total

Starting Base Data 23064

Live Confirmations(LI, CO, RQ)

3964

EX 1960

DE 775

Legitimately Unregistered (CA/CL et al) 296

Remaining 16,069

Resolved 6,995

%age Resolved 30%

Next Steps

• Xoserve has provided datasets to all GDNs for them to continue investigations.– GDNs to continue with investigations

• Xoserve has also provided datasets to relevant Shippers where an end user has indicated that they are supplied by a Supplier.– Shippers to investigate and respond to Xoserve.

Lessons Learned

• As with any project, Xoserve encountered a few difficulties.

• As the new MUS (Manage Unregistered Sites) Contact procedure includes a lettering aspect, it was though prudent to examine what could be done better in the future.

• Xoserve conducted an internal Lessons Learned Workshop.

• It was thought appropriate to share some of the Lessons Learned.

Lessons Learned - Resourcing

Issue Lesson Learned

Xoserve underestimated the end-user response rate and therefore underestimated the resource required to field the responses.

We will use this experience to influence our resourcing for possible future projects.

Xoserve was able to respond to unexpected requirements.

Xoserve’s flexibility and the flexibility of our staff allowed resource to be allocated where needed.

Xoserve outsourced the production and delivery of the letters and subsequently control of the issue of letters was reduced.

Xoserve would look to work with the printer in a different way in future projects.

Lessons Learned -Tools

Issue Lesson Learned

A round robin telephone system was set up to take calls, which was not very satisfactory.

Future exercises like this should be dealt with through the telephone bureau.

Lessons Learned - Communications

Issue Lesson Learned

The Shipperless and Unregistered Site Workgroup meetings were the main arena for communication in the run up to the start of the project. Not all Shippers attend the Workgroup meetings.

We will try to engage with more Shippers to attend the Workgroup.

Not all Shippers and DNs briefed their staff on the Project. As a result end users who contacted Shippers and Networks received incorrect advice.

We will try to engage with more Shippers and Networks to advise them of future projects but information needs to be cascaded within the respective organisations.

Xoserve did not anticipate complaints from End Users and therefore did not have a complaints procedure in place.

Xoserve did not anticipate complaints from End Users and therefore did not have a complaints procedure in place.

We will use this experience to prepare for future projects.

Xoserve’s different departments (Operations, Legal, Communications) worked well to put a procedure in place quickly.

GDN Updates

Ofgem Query – Responsibility for

a Meter at a Shipperless Site

Responsibility for a Meter at a Shipperless Site

• Xoserve was recently contacted by Ofgem following an enquiry from an End User who was having difficulty getting the meter and service removed from their property.

• No specific details were given, Ofgem wanted to know areas of responsibility in these circumstances.

– Shipperless – known previous supplier– Shipperless – no known previous supplier

• Can we have your comments on this situation?

Discussion Points

Discussion Points

• Shipperless and Unregistered Sites have been partly addressed by the Shipperless and Unregistered Clearance Project, and will continue to be addressed by the Contact Codes to be introduced as a result of MOD410a and MOD424/425 (MUS/GSR).

• There are a number of Shipperless and Unregistered Sites that have not been touched.– Legitimately Unregistered– Shipperless Sites with No Meter Attached

• Should these populations be the focus of the group’s attention?

Withdrawn Sites with Live

MPRNs with No Meter Attached

Withdrawn Sites with Live MPRN and No Meter

• Current Population: 392,144

• MPRN's which represent: Isolated and Withdrawn Sites

• Usual route to the Shipperless Pot for Isolated and Withdrawn Sites is to go through the GSR Process. Only sites where a meter has been found connected during a GSR investigation will be included.

• Current Population of Shipperless Pot: 5,725

Legitimately Unregistered

Legitimately Unregistered

• Current Population: 35,570

• MPRN's which represent: Vacant sites / No Gas meter but live service / Service still in planning stage.

• This dataset is only updated by adding new records or when MPRNs currently in the dataset are set to DE/EX or Confirmed.

• We have no way of knowing if the data that determined the inclusion of a record into this dataset is still correct, i.e. has someone moved into the property and consuming.

Group Activity

• Split into two groups

• Discuss one of the topics.– Root Causes– How does this affect the Industry?– How does this affect my organisation?– Does the issue need to be addressed?– What can be done to reduce the numbers?

• Feedback to the whole group.

• Formulate any necessary actions.

Contacts for 424, 425 & 410a Processes

Contacts for 424, 425 and 410a Processes

• A request has been made that a list of Shipper and Network Contacts should be made available for use during the investigation and resolution of GSR and MUS Contacts.

• It is proposed that the Contact list that is being compiled for the S&U Process should be used for this purpose.

• This list is still far from complete. We will be asking Xoserve’s Shipper Engagement Team to request contact details from each shipper.

MNC MPRN Creation Process Changes

GDN

MNC MPRN Creation Process Changes

When is an MNC not an MNC?

….when it’s a FOM

Dave Ackers

Background

• Meter Point Reference Number (the identity of the pipe) should originate at the time when the Meter Point is created.

• In the ‘ideal world’ this would be when the service pipe is in the ground and when the address of the property is officially registered by the Royal Mail.

• Procedurally, all meter points are Tagged (since August 2002) and visible, providing the ability to determine its numeric identity and the UIP

• These are posted to Xoserve in the form of a FOM Contact

• MNCs should be rare

Background

• Between January to June 2014 we received 39,665 FOMs ….average 6,600 per month

• We have processed these within 4 – 6 hours of receiving them

• Between January to June 2014 we received 8,325 MNCs ….average 1,400 per month

• 1 in 17 MNCs are rejected …around 1,000 each year

• We did a review of the MNC process as we noticed some MNC Contacts raised some doubts about their validity

FOMs & MNCs Explained

• FOM– The FOM acronym stands for ‘FOund Meter’ - (Tagged Service)– It is a request to create an MPRN for a Live Supply Point (with or

without a meter serial number) where UK link has no live record. This applies to tagged services only.

– FOMs can be generated by Shippers or UIPs.

• MNC– The MNC acronym stands for M Number Creation – (non tagged

service)– A request for Xoserve to create an MPRN for a Live Supply Point

where UK Link has no live record. These will not be tagged– MNCs can be generated by Shippers or Networks

Sample Period / Results

• Analysis undertaken– Conducted over a 6 months period January to June 2014

– Analysis of FOMs received and MNCs received

– We did an address match comparison between the 39.5k FOMs and the 8.5k MNCs

• Findings– Out of 48k MPRN creations (both FOMs and MNCs) we readily

noticed 97 (1 in 500) were duplicate records were created

– The various scenarios found are illustrated on the following slides

– There may be other duplicate records created if there were slight or noticeable variants in the address format (MNC address v. FOM address)

Addressing the problem

• The accuracy of the address and the timely provision of the approved address is one of the root causes

• Out of the 6k – 7k FOMs received each month, 1k start their life as Plot Addresses

• Many of these don’t get amended on UK-Link once the Royal Mail have given the premises an officially approved address.

• Twelve months ago there were 70k Plot Addresses

• We now have 40k Plot Address (worked with Shippers to obtain improved addresses and update UK-Link)

• Had we not had this drive to amend Plot to Postal, the number of ‘poor addresses’ would have been around 100k

MNC raised before the FOM

• MPRN 9327198111 was requested as an MNC for ‘16, Flat 2/2 Anon Place’ which was the PAF valid address. It was processed through CMS and the MPRN was created.

• Days later, MPRN 9298453222 was requested as an FOM for ‘16, 2/2 Anon Place’.

• As the addresses have a difference in the way the Flat is named, the system will create a second MPRN believing it is different.

• We identified 10 instances similar to this scenario where two different versions of the same address had been requested by a FOM and MNC.

‘Multi Service’ – very unlikely

• Of the 97 duplicate records created there were 75 that were attributed to a recently noticed practice of ticking the ‘Multi Service’ box on the CMS screen or indicating Y in the Multi Service file.

• This ability to indicate ‘Multi Service’ applies to both MNCs and FOMs.

• There were and addition 11 that didn’t cause a duplicate but the User selected ‘Multi Service’ when there was no existing MPRN on UK-Link.

• By doing this, validation is by-passed and Shipperless or Unregistered sites are created

M No Creations left stranded

• The following are combinations of scenarios seen….

– FOM raised first but MNC raised by Shipper on same day

– MNC raised by Shipper A on the same day as Shipper B raised another MNC

– Two MNCs raised by the same Shipper on the same day

– Two MNCs raised by the same Shipper some days apart

– MNC raised a few days before the FOM arrived

• There are now 37 false ‘Unregistered’ sites added to the Pot

Time Between Contacts FOM - MNC

Weeks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

No of MPRNs

• It is interesting to note the time difference between the two Contacts being raised.

• The below chart shows how many weeks after an FOM Contact, an MNC was raised for the same address.

Time Between Contacts MNC - FOM

Weeks

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No of MPRNs

The below chart shows how many weeks after an MNC Contact, an FOM was raised for the same address.

Summary of Root Causes

• Differences in how a property is Addressed?

• Potentially a delay in FOMs being submitted?

• Not checking Data Enquiry Service before submitting MNCs?

• Not establishing if Meter Point is Tagged before submitting MNC?

• Meter Points not being Tagged?

• Selecting ‘Multi Service’ when this is not correct

• Not amending Plot Addresses to Postal at the earliest opportunity

What Can Be Done?

• XOSERVE– Repeat this exercise monthly to identify MNCs and FOMs being raised

for same premises – Monitor instances of ‘Multi Service’ being selected to identify Users

using this incorrectly– Continue with project to amend Plot to postal addresses

• SHIPPERS– Perform the fullest of checks / enquiries before submitting MNCs– Request that incorrectly created MPRN records are set to EX at the

earliest opportunity– Review Internal Process Guidelines for M No Creation procedures– Don’t select ‘Multi Service’ if this is not correct

What Can Be Done?

• NETWORKS– Influence the UIPs about the timely submission of FOM Contacts – Influence UIPs to not select ‘Multi Service’ unless it truly is an

additional service entering a property– Re-affirm the importance of ‘Tagging’ the meter point

AOB

Any other business?

Thanks for your attendance your contribution & support

Have a safe journey home!