Here you can search for the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for several areas across the
site, including our various groups, events, services and improvement programmes. You can search for
a specific FAQ category using the dropdown menu on the right, and view all of the relevant FAQs for
any category by selecting the corresponding ‘View all’ button.
If you are unable to find what you need, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
You can also find lots of general information and support via Ofwat's Business Retail Market webpage and the Open Water website. If you would like provided complaint support and guidance, please visit CCW's Business Customer Hub.
MOSL is a member owned company, limited by guarantee. This means it is owned by it's members, which are the trading parties. Changes to our constitution, and approval of our annual budget, are therefore voted on by our members at a General Meeting.
Progress on our business plan commitments is published on a quarterly basis through our business plan and Key Performance Indicator (KPI) reports. You can find them here.
Please contact us via the Contact us page. Select 'press / media' as the subject and submit your question.
Progress on our business plan commitments is communicated through our business plan and KPI quarterly reports. They can be found on our Business Planning page.
You can access information on our business plan commitments here.
Bilateral Transactions Programme
'Bilateral transaction' is a complicated-sounding term for something that is, in essence, very simple.
In the non-household water market, retailers ‘own’ the relationship with customers. The retailer is responsible for the quality of service that a customer receives and nearly all communications with them.
The water itself is supplied - and taken away - by one of 26 regional wholesalers, who own the water and water infrastructure. They also own and maintain customers’ water meters. However, in the non-household market, wholesalers only contact customers directly in certain circumstances, e.g. if their water supply is cut off unexpectedly (i.e. there is an ‘unplanned outage’).
When serving their customers, retailers often need to liaise with wholesalers to get a particular job done, such as fixing a water meter. There is therefore a two-way – or ‘bilateral’ – relationship.
Each request, instruction or process update that passes between the retailer and wholesaler is referred to as a 'bilateral transaction.’ Each process often involves multiple bilateral transactions.
These bilateral transactions normally take place behind the scenes, without the customer needing or wanting to be aware – they should just happen. The customer usually only becomes aware of the interplay between wholesalers and retailer when something doesn’t go to plan.
The importance of ensuring that all companies adopted a consistent approach to bilateral transactions was recognised prior to the opening of the non-household water market in April 2017.
However, in order to ensure the market opened on time it was agreed that the bilateral programme would be taken out of scope from the Open Water programme and revisited after launch.
As a result of this decision, each trading party (26 wholesalers, 35 retailers as at 31 March 2020) developed its own, often unique, procedures and protocols for delivering the processes defined by the market codes.
This has led to hundreds, possibly thousands of different combinations and permutations of processes in the market; each a point of potential delay and/or failure.
While on a single retailer to single wholesaler basis these processes may be relatively smooth, the more wholesalers a retailer works with, the more complicated and cumbersome the processes become.
Both the industry and MOSL consider bilateral transactions to be ‘unfinished business’. You can read more about MOSL’s perspective in the June 2020 edition of The Water Report.
The current bilateral programme, which was initiated in February 2020, builds on the lessons of previous projects and is the most concerted effort to date to deliver this important programme.
The primary goal of the bilateral transactions programme is to improve the speed and quality of service that water companies provide to their non-household customers.
These customer improvements will be created by a programme that:
- Adopts a consistent approach to raising and responding to bilateral requests between wholesalers and retailers
- Facilitates simpler, leaner and faster operational processes
- Increases automation, making better use of central data and reducing the number of bilateral transactions that are rejected
- Requires trading parties to use fewer user accounts and logins, reducing the need for manual intervention
- Enables more transparent performance levels that are easier to compare and report; helping to drive continued improvements in the industry’s performance.
Although the programme aims to make a significant improvement to issues currently relating to bilateral transactions, it is not a panacea. Market participants will need to continue to drive improvements, both individually and collectively, particularly in relation to data quality.
As well as improvements in bilateral processes, the programme will also significantly increase the visibility and measurability of individual processes at both an individual company and market level.
This information can then be used to measure performances, identify issues and drive further efficiency in the market.
MOSL is currently working with market participants to develop proposals to improve bilateral transactions.
It should be stressed that the bilateral transactions programme is much broader than an IT or ‘system solution’. It is an industry-wide endeavour that requires extensive engagement and cooperation across the industry.
While a solution is currently in development, we know the principles on which it will be based from our extensive discussions with trading parties about their processes.
The bilateral programme will involve the standardisation of key processes and creation of a central ‘hub’ by MOSL. The hub will hold up-to-date status information about each process.
MOSL will not be taking a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to interacting with the hub and will be allowing various methods, depending on companies’ needs and their size.
In doing so, MOSL aims to minimise additional costs for market participants, extend the life of systems that companies have already developed and reduce the risk of assets being ‘stranded’.
Trading parties will be able to access the ‘hub’ in a number of ways, including:
- Their own portal(s)
- The portal(s) that MOSL will provide and maintain as part of the programme
- The ‘low volume interface’ or LVI (i.e. individual entries, entered manually)
- The ‘medium volume interface’ or MVI (e.g. using spreadsheets to upload multiple entries that are formatted correctly)
- System-to-system integration (sometimes referred to as HVI or the 'high volume interface').
It will be mandatory for market participants to interface with the MOSL ‘hub’. Which route companies choose to take will be up to them.
MOSL has identified approximately 70 bilateral transactions that are within scope of the programme, of which approximately 15 represent the vast majority of transactions in terms of volume and/or customer-impacting issues. The top eight processes alone account for 80 per cent of the volume of bilateral processes in the non-household market.
Each process will be considered in turn, with the MOSL team engaging with trading parties regularly through cross-industry advisory groups to discuss proposals and get feedback and input on potential process improvements before sharing the output with all market participants.
The team will be addressing the processes in priority order, beginning with the meter validation process (‘C1’ in the Wholesale Contract Operational Terms).
MOSL will be adopting a flexible, agile-like approach to implementation. Each process analysed, defined, developed, tested and implemented in turn in order to provide maximum benefit to the market – and therefore customers – as quickly as possible.
This approach also reduces many of the risks traditionally associated with ‘big bang’ software implementations.
There are just under 70 bilateral processes in the market (67 to be exact), of which the top eight represent approximately 80 per cent of the most important transactions by volume and/or impact on customers.
The order in which MOSL will address the processes is based on a number of factors, including not only quantitative factors, i.e. the volume of transactions, but also qualitative factors, e.g. processes that are creating the most significant customer-impacting issues.
You can find out more about the order in which MOSL is addressing bilateral transactions and the progress we are making here.
Market Improvement Fund
MOSL is facilitating the Market Improvement Fund on behalf of the Panel.
As part of this responsiblity, MOSL will assist the independent Selection Panel by ensuring that all applications that are submitted meet the eligibility criteria. However, MOSL will present all applications, those who are both eligable and uneligable, to ensure that the Selection Committee has full visiblity of the applications.
As part of the eligbility criteria, MOSL is allowed to submit or sponsor a bid. These bids will undertake the same eligibility assessment as other bids, and the Selection Committee will be made aware that it is a MOSL bid.
The Market Improvement Fund (MIF) is a fund that will provide money to projects that benefit the non-household market. It has been designed to compliment Ofwat's Innovation Competitions. For the first year of the fund we will be awarding up to a total of £1million to the successful projects. It is owned by the Panel, but facilitated by MOSL.
In January 2020 an official code change was implemented to allow Market Performance Standard (MPS) and Operational Performance Standard (OPS) charges to be used to create the Market Improvement Fund - this will enable charges to be redirected to better benefit customers and the market. Due to COVID-19 the Market Improvement Fund launch was delayed until 2021. The money that will be distributed to the winning bids will be made up of MPS and OPS charges accumulated throughout 2021.
Applicants can bid for a minimum of £10k and a maximum of £150k. However, if your project requires funding outside of that criteria, it may be considered.
In order to apply to the Market Improvement Fund, the project must:
- Enhance market functioning and benefit non-household customers
- Could not be considered 'business as usual'
- Does not confer any particular competitive advantage to any trading party or group of trading parties
The fund must be sponsored by a trading party or the Market Operator, although third-party bids are encouraged.
For a full list of criteria, please see the governance document which will be available shortly.
Applications open for the first round of funding on Wednesday 1 September 2021. The deadline to submit applications is 6pm on Thursday 30 September 2021.
If the winning bids equate to less than £1m, all monies will be redistributed to trading parties as per the usual process.
All applicants will receive an email to say that their application has been received, as well as a notification of the result of their application. Unsuccessful applications will be given a brief summary as to why their application was rejected. Final award of funds will take place once the Funding Agreement has been signed by MOSL and all successful applicants.
A list of successful applicants and a brief summary of why they were successful will be published on the MOSL website at the end of each funding round.
Yes. The Market Improvement Fund has been designed to complement Ofwat's Innovation Competitions so that the application process and supporting information remains the same. However, you will need to provide sufficient information to prove that funding has been secured by Ofwat's fund.
Not all papers are publicly available due to confidentiality, therefore they will not be publicly available on the website to view.
Retailer Wholesaler Group (RWG)
The RWG has produced good practice guides across a variety of topic areas. Some of the good practice has subsequently been adopted into the market codes.
MOSL have long been a contributor to the RWG and support in secretariat services, communications and hosting the RWG webpage.
All topics relevant to the non-household market where we can improve the customer experience are on the table. If you feel that your potential topic is not covered by the existing sub groups then please contact both the main RWG chairs so it can be discussed at the Steering Group.
Most good practice guides include a summary table to indicate which elements of good practice the trading party has adopted.
Adherence to the guidance is voluntary but Ofwat expect trading parties to explain why on an annual basis. Also some guidance will after a specific time period follow an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) route so therefore will become mandatory.
This is dependant on the topic, but the majority are reviewed by the relevant subgroup every one or two years.
All topics relevant to the NHH market where we can improve the customer experience are on the table. If you feel that your potential topic is not covered by the existing sub groups then please contact both the main RWG chairs so it can be discussed at the Steering Group.
All trading parties are automatically members unless they specifically request not to be involved. Please check with your Contract Manager.
As the disputing party, you must ensure that you adhere to any SLAs which have been set for you. These are code-obligated SLAs which will help to ensure that all disputes are completed within a justified timeframe. Furthermore, it is important that, as the disputing party, you submit only accurate and correct data, when requested by MOSL.
MOSL, as market operator, retains an overall responsibility to provide independent case management capabilities for disputes in the market. Where MOSL is also a disputing party, we will ensure that we maintain separation when dealing with the dispute in our capacity as Case Manager. We will also ensure that no one making decisions regarding the resolution is involved in the overall management of the dispute. In all cases, MOSL will operate to a Code of Conduct to ensure appropriate behaviour and neutrality.
The 'expert' is appointed through mutual consent by participating disputing parties, to aid the resolution of a dispute. Experts can be nominated by any party or through a list of recommended 'subject matter experts' from the Academy of Experts.
The role of the expert is to act as an independent decision maker, who will deliver an overall judgement, oversee the creation of a remediation plan and disperse the total expenses and fees incurred through the MO Dispute process.
The expert will provide the MO disputing parties with a breakdown of fees and any reasonable expenses incurred. The disputing parties are required to share the fees and expenses equally, unless directed otherwise by the expert. The expert has the authority to direct one party to pay a larger sum (which includes, but is not limited to, fees and expenses).
Trading Disputes should be raised and managed through Kissflow. Any additional information which you believe would strengthen the case for raising a dispute can also be attached to the application. MOSL will acknowledge the application within five business days.
The activities involved depend on the specific dispute, however it will follow these four key stages:
- Raise Trading Dispute
- Hold resolution meeting with disputies parties
- Raise to Disputes Committee for decision
- Refer to arbitration.
The objective of arbitration is to obtain a fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal, without unnecessary delay or expense. If it has not been possible to resolve the dispute at three previous meetings, either disputing party can refer the dispute further to arbitration. This is done by submitting a written request to the The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). The disputing parties will have the opportunity to agree and nominate a sole arbitrator, who will review the dispute and come to an impartial decision. If the disputing parties are unable to agree on a nominated sole arbitrator, a request can be submitted to the Panel Chairman who will instead nominate a proposed sole arbitrator to the LCIA. In the event that neither party nominates a sole arbitrator to the LCIA within 20 business days of the filing of the response, the LCIA will nominate a sole arbitrator in accordance with the LCIA rules.
MOSL do not play an active role beyond monitoring the arbitration process once the dispute has been escalated. Responsibility remains solely on a trading party to organise, communicate to MOSL, and undergo the arbitration process, which must be raised under London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules.
For more information on the a trading party’s obligations during the arbitration process, please refer to Section 19 of the Business Terms.
The decision of the sole arbitrator will be final and binding for all the disputing parties. In referring a dispute to arbitration, the disputing parties waive any right to challenge or appeal any outcome of the arbitration tribunal to the full extent permitted by law.
The Disputes Committee has responsibility to resolve disputes relating to Primary Charges, therefore disputes cannot be raised for invoice periods prior to April 2017. However, in certain circumstances historical data (e.g. meter reads) that relate to periods prior to April 2017 may be considered included within the scope of a Trading Dispute, should that data impact an invoice period over which the Dispute Committee has remit.
In order for a Trading Dispute to be valid, it must meet the following criteria:
- Trading parties are disputing a data item
- The disputing party has notified the other disputing party(ies) in writing of the dispute and held a meeting to attempt resolution
- The Trading Dispute is not in respect of Non-Primary Charges, which are outside of MOSL’s remit
- The same data item/error has not been previously investigated.
If you are unhappy with the decision proposed by the Dispute Committee, you can refer the Trading Dispute to arbitration. You will have 20 business days from the Dispute Committee decision to refer the dispute to arbitration. If a Trading Dispute is not referred to arbitration within that time, then the decision of the Disputes Committee will be final and binding for all trading parties, and each must comply with the decision made.
Prior to escalating a Trading Dispute to the Disputes Committee, trading parties must first have:
- Notified the other disputing party(ies) in writing of the existence and subject matter of the dispute
- Held a meeting involving all disputing parties to try and resolve the dispute.
To support the Trading Dispute, MOSL will accept additional relevant information from impacted parties.
One of the following steps may be taken to rectify the issue:
- Undertake the next Planned Settlement Run after the 20 business days the parties have to refer trhe dispute to arbitration
- Undertake a Dispute Settlement Run, which will be determined by the Disputes Committee. It is decided by looking at the period to the next Planned Settlement Run, alongside the severity of the Trading Dispute
- Where a Trading Dispute is not decided until after the relevant final Settlement Run, undertake a Post-RF Settlement Run.
Fees for any such rectification will be distributed across the disputing parties as decided upon by the Disputes Committee.
Market Operator (MO) Disputes
Please click here to download an outline of the MO Disputes process. This outline map clearly shows key stages of the process, including resolution and the steps disputing parties need to take.
An MO Dispute is the end product of when a trading party believes an error or omission regarding the production of the Settlement Report has occurred by the Market Operator (MOSL).
An MO Dispute may only be initiated upon attempting a resolution through either mediation/informal meetings - as an attempt to resolve the issue or query with associated disputing parties or by raising a Statutory Query. If a resolution has not been found via the Statutory Query Process, the initiating party will be required to initiate an MO Dispute.
Prior to raising an MO Dispute, trading parties must have attempted to resolve their issues through the Statutory Query process. If this does not achieve a suitable resolution, they will then be required to attempt a mediation step with MOSL. Only when both the Statutory Query process and mediation fail to provide a resolution, will the trading party be able to initiate the MO Dispute Process.
MO Disputes should be raised through Kissflow, where the initiator of the dispute will be required to provide a completed MO Disputes Form which will be submitted also through Kissflow. In order for the dispute to qualify, the initiator will be required to ensure the dispute meets all criteria listed within the form prior to submission. The application form may be rejected if the dispute request fails to meet the criteria outlined.
The initiator will be required to ensure all forms and supplementary documentation have been submitted within the allotted period and that the form has been completed accurately and submitted by the relevant Contract Manager.
Upon receipt of the application, MOSL will provide acknowledgement of the dispute within a suitable period of time. Kissflow will also generate an MO Dispute Number for your application, which will be associated with your dispute logged with MOSL.
Upon submission of the Dispute Application via Kissflow, a Case Manager will be assigned to the application. The Case Manager will determine if the dispute meets the criteria and if so, progress it through Kissflow. This includes tracking decisions made by an appropriate expert, where required. Upon a decision being made, remediating actions will be taken within Kissflow as needed.
Where the dispute is successful, remediation measures will be taken to rectify the issue, including re-running settlement and/or the formation of a remediation plan. Other affected parties and/or broader audiences will be notified of the dispute findings; MOSL will publish any findings on its website.
If you are raising an MO Dispute it must meet any of the following criteria in order for it to be considered valid:
- MOSL produced an inaccurate settlement, that is not caused by any data item of the trading party raising the dispute, or another trading party
- MOSL failed to provide a rectification plan within two months
- MOSL failed to implement its rectification plan in a timely manner
- MOSL provided a rectification plan that is unclear, incomplete or materially incorrect.
MAC and Non-Trading Disputes
Both MAC and Non-Trading Disputes are raised and managed through Kissflow. You will need to complete all necessary fields as part of your submission and submit any attachments you believe strengthen the cause for raising a dispute.
Prior to raising a MAC or Non-Trading Dispute, you should first raise a Statuatory Query wih MOSL to confirm any differences of interpretation. If you believe another trading party is not acting in alignment with the market codes, you should attempt to resolve the issue directly with the associated party prior to raising the dispute.
Once your dispute is accepted, you will need to work with MOSL to attempt to resolve your issue successfully. This can be done by:
- Working efficiently to make sure that all code obligated deadlines related to the dispute process are met
- Ensuring that you provide accurate data throughout the processing of your dispute
- Making sure you set up and honour the dates of any scheduled meetings and that the appropriate individual attend all meetings
- Maintaining appropriate contact with MOSL, especially where MOSL is not a disputing party and is acting instead as a Case Manager. (Where MOSL is acting as a Case Manager, we will operate to a Code of Conduct to ensure complete neutrality.)
- Entering the dispute process in good faith and with an openness to reach a resolution.
Further details on the MAC Dispute Resolution process can be found in Sections 17.2 to 17.9 of the MAC. Additional Information concerning a Non-Trading Dispute can be found within Section 17 of the Business Terms.
The outcome of either the MAC or Non-Trading Dispute will depend on its nature, and the levels of escalation required through the MAC and Non-Trading Dispute resolution process. The overall decision will be determined either between the disputing parties or by arbitration, if a resolution is not possible. Outcomes can include, but are not limited to:
- Code change. If both parties agree that the section of code which has led to the dispute is ambiguous, a code change proposal may be submitted to the Panel who will consider the change
- Change in process. This may be a change to how MOSL or the trading party operates
- Rectification of previous errors. This may include revisions to previous determinations made by MOSL.
There are no fees associated with raising a dispute, however fees will be incurred if the dispute gets referred to arbitration. All parties involved will be jointly liable for paying costs, the total amount of which will be determined by the LCIA Court as its Schedule of Costs. The arbitration tribunal will determine the proportion of the total costs payable by each involved party. The tribunal may also recover expenses in connection with arbitration and further costs may be incurred as a result of rectification activities, which may arise as part of a dispute's resolution.
If your dispute is rejected it will be closed in Kissflow and no further actions are required, unless you wish to raise another dispute. MOSL will provide a rationale for the rejection, which can be found on your submission.
Market Entry Assurance (MEA)
Market Entry Assurance provides MOSL and other trading parties with assurance that you can uphold your market obligations and ultimately participate in the market. It also fulfils two Trading Conditions.
Market Entry Assurance Testing (MEAT) involves two stages; Interface and Data Transaction Testing (IDTT) and Market Scenario Testing (MST). IDTT is designed to ensure your company’s systems can interact with the CMOS, whereas MST provides a series of business scenarios to ensure your systems can complete common system transactions. For more information on MEAT, see the MEAT plan.
We strongly encourage applicants to complete their MEA Testing within a 10-day window. However, if you are unable to complete testing within this timeframe, it can be extended.
Material changes are any changes made by a trading party which affects the way they uphold their market obligations.
The third party report should include your company’s approach to completing the Business Solution Assessment, and should assure the outcomes of the assurance undertaken. If you consider some statements to carry a higher level of risk, you may consider it appropriate for the third party report to provide assurance on these statements as well.
No. You only need to complete all scenarios if you plan to use all transactions in the High-Volume Interface (HVI). If you only plan to use the HVI for select transactions, you only need to complete scenarios in which these transactions feature.
MOSL will provide test data for new entrants who need to complete MEA testing.
MOSL has not specified the level of detail required, as it differs between applicants and depends on individual circumstances. We are happy to review drafts and answer questions before you submit final versions. Please contact us for more information.
The documents should be signed by someone with authority to sign on behalf of your company.
MOSL does not charge for applicants to undergo MEA.
There are two routes applicants can take to complete MEA; self-certification and enhanced. Applicants with small scale operations, mostly manual processes, and who intend to only use the Low Volume Interface (LVI) in CMOS can go through self-certification. This is considered the ‘light-touch’ route. All other applicants must go through the enhanced certification route, which involves providing more in-depth assurance to MOSL and undergoing testing of the company’s systems.
Each MEA document will ask for different types of information, and will explain what you are expected to provide. While supporting documents such as process maps or policies are not required, you can submit these if you feel they will help MOSL to better understand your company’s capability.
Most applicants take between 40-60 business days to complete the Market Entry Assurance process, depending on whether they go through self-certification or enhanced certification.
Market Re-assurance is the process by which a tradingparty provides assurance to MOSL that any material change(s) it has made to its business capability does not affect its ability to uphold its market obligations. The Market Re-assurance process is similar to the Market Entry Assurance (MEA) process, except that trading parties only need to complete the stages affected by the material change(s). For example, if a trading party is not changing the way it interfaces with the CMOS or how it sends and receives transactions, it will likely not need to undergo re-assurance testing.
Market Re-assurance will involve completion of the Market Re-assurance Information Return, which sets out how the material change(s) made affect the business capability and the Market Re-assurance Plan, which sets out the timeframe for the rest of the re-assurance process. Depending on the nature of the material change(s), and the MEA route the trading party underwent, market re-assurance can also involve a Self-certification declaration, Business Solution Assessment (BSA), and/or Market Re-assurance Testing.
If you are making a material change(s) to your business capability, which affects the way in which you uphold your obligations, you should consider whether you need to undergo Market Re-assurance. The decision as to whether it's needed, and which stages are required, is decided by the trading party.
The Market Re-assurance process is similar to that of MEA, in that it provides assurance on the business capability to be used in the market. However, when completing re-assurance trading parties do not necessarily need to complete all stages like they would in MEA. There is also no Trading Application to complete and the Market Re-assurance Information Return replaces the Applicant Information Return.
Trading parties completing enhanced Market Re-assurance will likely be required to complete a Business Solution Assessment (BSA). You do not need to complete all the assurance statements, but should complete the approach and risk consideration sections and provide a third party report. You will only need to complete the assurance statements which are affected by the material change(s) for which you are undergoing re-assurance. All other statements can be market as ‘N/A’.
Re-assurance Testing includes Interface and Data Transaction Testing (IDTT) and Market Scenario Testing (MST). All trading parties undergoing Re-assurance Testing need to complete IDTT. However, trading parties will only need to complete the scenarios within MST which are affected by the material change(s) for which they are undergoing Market Re-assurance.
Market Exit - Interim Supply Allocation
If a wholesaler chooses to terminate its contract with a retailer, an interim supply process will be used to allocate the customers to a new licensee (new retailer), but only for the wholesale area for which the contract was terminated. If the retailer has customers in other wholesale areas, the retailer can continue to operate as normal in those areas.
If a retailer exits the market through insolvency or through licence revocation by Ofwat, an interim supply process is used to allocate the customers in all wholesale areas to a new licensee (new retailer).
Other than notifying MOSL if a retailer becomes subject to an insolvency event, the wholesaler has very limited involvement in the Interim Supply Allocation exercise. Once the interim supply points have been allocated to retailers, the relevant wholesaler(s) may need to complete actions in accordance with CSD 0102: ‘Registration: Transfers’ and CSD 0202: ‘Meter Read Submission: Process’, in order to make the supply point(s) tradable.
There are two different methods of allocation which may be used for an interim supply event:
- Ofwat will instruct MOSL to use the allocation process within CMOS, which will allocate the supply points between retailers with an active opt in agreements. In this process, the supply points may be allocated to a number of retailers
- Ofwat may choose to utilise the tender process, through which retailers are required to provide Ofwat with commercial information. Ofwat will then make an assessment on the retailer deemed the most appropriate for the supply points to be allocated to. In this process, the supply points will only be allocated to one retailer.
During the allocation window for opting in or out of an interim supply event, retailers should review their opt in status in CMOS to ensure it accurately indicates the retailer’s decision to be opted in or opted out.
Once the deadline for temporary suspension has passed, no further action is required by retailers until the interim duty supply points are allocated to them, at which point they will need to take all necessary steps to make the supply point(s) tradeable.
If the supply point is metered, retailers will need to make arrangements for the submission of a transfer read to MOSL. This is in accordance with CSD 0102: ‘Registration: Transfers’ and CSD 0202: ‘Meter Read Submission; Process’ in relation to all meters registered at each affected supply point
The exiting retailer will remain responsible for settling any outstanding balance, unless the interim supply process was initiated through an insolvency event. In this case, trading parties should contact the liquidator regarding any outstanding balance.
There is currently no market template available for a wholesaler termination notice. Wholesalers are required to create a termination notice based on the requirements in the Business Terms.
Yes, the exiting retailer will continue to show on all settlement invoices prior to the point of the supply points being transferred to the incoming retailer.
The incoming retailer will be responsible for any costs from the date of cessation of supply or the date of termination for the exiting retailer. The exiting retailer will be responsible for any costs prior to the transfer. The history associated with the supply points will not transfer to the new retailer through the interim supply process.
The date of transfer will be confirmed by Ofwat and MOSL. This timescale will be agreed to ensure a quick and smooth transfer to minimise any customer impact and to provide trading parties enough time to update their opt in status.
If the retailer still has an active Water and Sewerage Supply Licence (WSSL), there is no obligation to terminate the wholesale contract. It is the responsibility of the individual wholesaler(s) to make this decision. If the revocation of supply has taken place for a retailer i.e. Ofwat has revoked the retailer’s licence, any wholesalers with an active wholesale contract should follow the relevant steps laid out in Section 11.2 of the Business Terms. Please note, the wholesaler must provide MOSL and Ofwat with notice of its intention to terminate the wholesale contract at least 10 business days’ in advance i.e. prior to the date of termination specified in the notice.
MOSL has produced a guidance document, which outlines the steps required to view and update your opt in status in CMOS.
Settlement is the process by which MOSL calculates the charges payable by individual retailers to their related wholesalers, for the supply of water and sewerage services. These are created for each invoice period (monthly).
Please note, MOSL takes no part in either the invoicing or funds transfer in respect to these charges. These should be dealt with directly by the wholesaler and retailer in accordance with Business Terms. For more information please the Section 4.13 of the Market Terms.
The Central Market Operating System (CMOS) carries out detailed calculations on data maintained by market participants. The calculations of these are detailed in CSD0207: charge calculation, allocation and aggregation and make use of the tariff data maintained by the wholesalers in accordance with CSD0208: submission and validation of wholesaler tariff data. MOSL produces settlement reports, using this data, in accordance with CSD0201: settlement timetable and reporting. For upcoming settlement and report timings, please see the Settlement Timetable.
Following the distribution of the R2, R3, R4 and RF Settlement Reports and the distribution of the R1 Settlement Report, where the pre-payment option has been selected by the retailer based on the P1 report - the wholesaler will calculate the reconciliation balances and invoice the retailer in respect of these balances.
The reconciliation balances are the differences between the amounts already paid by the retailer for the invoice period, and the charges calculated by the updated Settlement Run. As such, reconciliation could result in either a refund or an additional charge being applied to the retailer.
An unplanned settlement run is the recalculation of primary charges for an invoice period outside of the planned schedule of reconciliations. It can be carried out when an incorrect data item has affected the calculation of primary charges reported in a planned settlement run. Unplanned settlement runs will either be carried out by agreement of the impacted trading parties (corrective settlement runs and post RF settlement runs) or following the resolution of a dispute (dispute settlement run). These recalculated values can be used by the affected parties to determine charges due by the retailer to the wholesaler.
Trading parties are able to initiate an unplanned settlement run request via Kissflow. As the initiator of the application for an unplanned settlement run, you will be required to ensure the below points have been actioned appropriately:
- Ensure that the Supporting Unplanned Settlement Information document has been filled out correctly, including:
a. The current figure of the incorrect settlement run (or incorrect element);
b. The projected figure following correction and how this has been determined; and
c. Demonstrating that the correction will meet the minimum 1 per cent of primary charges and threshold requirement dependent on the type of unplanned settlement run you seek
- That you have correctly provided information concerning the issue, including the reasons for why you believe an unplanned settlement run is required
- Detail sufficient information of each wholesale-retail pairing requiring recalculation
- Determining contributing costs of the unplanned settlement run
- All parties (including indirectly affected organisations) are in agreement of the unplanned settlement run occurring (and any assigned costs), with attachments provided evidencing their approval.
You will first receive your settlement run – this will be published following the unplanned settlement run completing successfully. Following this, MOSL will provide a comparison of the planned settlement report, against the settlement recalculation, in the format of the unexpected results reports. This report will be uploaded to the legacy website forums.
Please be aware that future unexpected results of planned settlement runs will not consider any corrective rerun data. Any analysis undertaken by the initiating trading party should consider variances which may occur between said corrective runs and the unexpected results comparisons.
Other trading parties may receive disaggregated reports for meter networks (D3) and/or user exceptions (D4) reports upon the recalculations of a separate wholesale-retail pairing. Please note, this is generated by CMOS but should not affect settlement calculations. If any issues do occur, please contact email@example.com, who are available to provide guidance if there are any queries.
For corrective settlement runs, the materiality thresholds are the larger of :
- 1.0 per cent of the value of the primary charges due to the contracting wholesaler, from the contracting retailer, for the relevant area in that invoice period
For dispute settlement runs, the materiality threshold is the larger of:
- 1.0 per cent of the sum of the aggregate value of the primary charges due to the contracting wholesaler, from the contracting retailer, for the relevant area over all of the relevant invoice periods
- £10,000.00 x the number of runs proposed to be carried out.
For post RF settlement runs, the materiality threshold is the larger of:
- 0.1 per cent of the sum of the aggregate value of the primary charges due to the contracting wholesaler from the contracting retailer for the relevant area for each of the relevant consecutive invoice periods affected
- £3,000.00 x the number of runs to be carried out.
The costs of an unplanned settlement run can be found on the additional services webpage and will be based on the number of wholesale-retail pairings required. However, no charge will apply for pairings where the included retailer is indirectly affected by the actions of other retailers. For example, where a new retailer has provided an inaccurate meter reading within CMOS, but the effects of the meter reading have also affected charges for the previous retailer. The new retailer’s pairing will be chargeable, but the previous retailer’s pairing will be corrected without charge. The costs are to be covered by the impacted trading parties – for voluntary re-runs, costs can be assigned as agreed by the affected parties. Costs accrued through the dispute settlement run will be determined and allocated by the Disputes Committee, the arbiter or the expert as applicable.
The process by which the Credit Support Requirement is calculated is set out in the Wholesale Retail Code (WRC), Part 1, Objectives, Definitions and Principles and the Business Terms. Please note that this requirement is calculated with reference to the value of the P1 Aggregated Settlement Report and as such, may fluctuate between invoice periods.
The Supply Point Identifier (SPID) will stay the same regardless of the tariff applied for settlement, as it relates directly to the premise. If a meter is installed which moves the premise to measured then the wholesaler will need to update the market operator (MOSL) using the T104.W, with all the neccesary data to update this. Settlement charges are calculated on a daily basis and will take into account any changes to tariffs affecting data.
R2, R3, R4 and RF settlement runs are carried out in a consecutive order every two, eight, fourteen and sixteen months after the end of the invoice period. Each run is a complete recalculation of the settlement charges and factors in new and updated data about each supply point, which has been submitted market participants into CMOS.
If you are the data owner, you can correct the data by sending in suitable transactions. Please note, there are some transactions which are currently unavailable. In some cases, it it is possible to use a workaround, as detailed in the workaround log, other times may be necessary to wait until a future CMOS Release to correct the data.
The most likely cause of incorrect settlement is incorrect or missing data. Your first action should be to carefully check the data inputted and your calculation.. If you’re still concerned the settlement is wrong, please fill out the Settlement Clarification Request Form.
P1 runs are carried out before the invoice period, whereas R1 runs are carried out immediately following the invoice period. In accordance with Section 9.2.2 of the Business Terms, a retailer can choose either a pre-payment or a post-payment option with agreement from the wholesaler, in order to pay its primary charges.
An unplanned settlement run must be raised within the timeframe for each run type:
- Reconciliation (R1-4) runs must be raised within 10 business days of publication
- Preliminary (P1) runs must be raised within two business days of publication
- Post RF runs must be raised within 20 business days of publication
- Dispute runs should be raised in a timely manner following rectification of the issue.
In the event in which an application is raised or notice has been provided to MOSL prior to publication of the relevant settlement report, the application will not be processed until said reports have been published to the wider market, as per the dates outlined within the MOSL calendar and along the guidelines stipulated within the Code Subsidiary Documents (CSDs).
Unplanned settlement runs must meet a materiality requirement. Where this is not met, trading parties will need to wait until the next planned settlement run.
This is a report created by MOSL, in addition to those specified in the Market Terms and Code Subsiduary Documents (CSDs). It highlights cases where there are unexpected changes in settlement between different settlement runs.
Participants may have seen a ‘system exception report’ during market testing. The objective of this report is to provide evidence to MOSL of an issue with settlement, primarily due to an internal CMOS defect.
Settlement Runs are done overnight, but will only include transactions up to the end of that business day (6pm).
Market participant’s systems will inevitably not be directly comparable to CMOS, which may result in this variation. For example, participants may have various financial, billing and specialised sub-systems in place, which produce similar, but not directly comparable results. For example, it is possible that a financial system may calculate monthly revenues, but the routines used to calculate consumption will not be the same as those in CMOS. A billing system is likely to produce bills from meter read to meter read, so these would not cover the same period as the CMOS settlement system. However, over a longer period, these effects will balance out.
Yes. P1 Settlement Reports will be provided to all wholesalers and retailers participating in the market.
With regards to disputes, the next Settlement Run will provide corrections to the disputed item(s). A wholesaler can then reconcile against the previous invoice with any over or under charge identified and reconciled. If this can’t be done, or the dispute meets certain conditions as detailed in Market Terms 4.13.4, then an unplanned Settlement Run can be requested.
When a Yearly Volume Estimate (YVE) of zero is supplied, zero settlement charge is calculated.
It is usual for the sums on the reports to differ slightly - this is caused by rounding. For example, in the Aggregated Report all the relevant charges (from multiple supply points) are initially added without rounding. The totals are then rounded to four decimal places. In the Disaggregated Reports the charges in each line are shown rounded to four decimal places. When these rounded numbers are added, there is a minor discrepancy in overall total.
The answer to this varies depending on the organisation. Participants should carry out the appropriate checks in respect to the accuracy of the settlement calculation and of the data supplied, to suit the requirements of their organisation.
The format and content of the Settlement Reports is defined in CSD0201: settlement timetable and reporting. Where defects in the deployed version of these reports have been identified, the reports will be amended to reflect CSD0201.