Trading parties can raise a dispute if they believe another party in the market is operating incorrectly in relation to; incorrect data items, inaccuracy of settlement reports, non-adherence to the Market Arrangements Code (MAC) obligations and/or non-adherence to other areas of the code.
You can find out more about the different types of disputes below, along with a list of all active disputes.
Trading Disputes occur when two trading parties disagree on whether a data item has been accurately maintained, which has had an effect on Primary Charges. Under the Market Arrangements Code (MAC), parties have an obligation to ensure that data is maintained accurately. In the event of inaccuracy, raising a Trading Dispute effectively escalates the dispute to ensure rectification. Prior to raising a Trading Dispute, however, a trading party must make all reasonable steps to resolve the discrepancy with the parties involved.
For more information, please visit the Trading Disputes page.
Market Operator (MO) Disputes
The Market Operator (MO) Dispute resolution process aims to rectify any errors considered to be the cause of inaccurate results occurring within the Settlement Report. An error can be raised by the contracting wholesaler or retailer, but must not be due to errors in or omissions of any data items, as this would constitute a Trading Dispute.
For more information, please visit the MO Disputes page.
MAC and Non-Trading Disputes
MAC Dispute resolution is designed to resolve any issue, in which a trading party believes an organisation, either MOSL or another trading party, has failed to comply in accordance with their obligations, as stipulated in the market codes. A Non-Trading Dispute follows the same procedure as that contained within the MAC Dispute. The dispute will have the same process, but will differ in terms of the scope.
For more information, please visit the MAC and Non-Trading Disputes page.
Please find the list of all open disputes below, and disputes closed in the last 12 Months.
|Dispute type||Publication date||Title||Description|
|Unified||26/03/2021 Closed:13/09/21||DIS0032||Updated 13/09/21: Closed. From the original volume there are a handful of SPIDs awaiting resolution which can be resolved by ongoing work between Thames Water and Castle Water. Original Dispute wording: Castle Water Limited (Castle) asserts that Thames Water Limited (Thames) have not used Visual reads when submitting Final reads in the case of 417 SPIDs . This is contrary to Section 3.3.3 of CSD0202 Meter Read Submission: Process - “The only permitted Meter Read Method for a Final Read is “Visual”.|
|Unified||20/11/2020||DIS0021||Thames Water state that Castle Water are incorrectly withholding settlement charges relating to SPIDs where Castle Water state that Thames Water as a Wholesaler have a responsibility to provide remote reading systems.|
|Non Trading||06/05/2020||COD00060||Marston’s PLC has raised a dispute with Severn Trent Water in relation to Wholesale Retail Code: Business Terms – Schedule 3: Alternative Eligible Credit Support. The parties are yet to agree on a resolution and the dispute remains open.|
|MAC||19/11/2018||COD00054||Thames Water provided Castle Water with a list of supply points, where an issue has been identified concerning to defective meter pit covers. As a result, meter reads were unable to be taken.|
|MAC||19/11/2018||COD00053||A list of supply points held by Thames Water have been identified by Castle Water as having meters located in an unsafe location and subsequently meter reads were unable to be taken.|
|MAC||19/11/2018||COD00051||A list of supply points held by Thames Water have been identified by Castle Water as having an issue related to damaged meters. As such, meter reads are unable to be input.|
|MAC||19/11/2018||COD00049||Castle Water has identified a number of supply points held by Thames Water with meters associated with defective reading systems. As such, meter reads are unable to be input.|
|Unified||20/11/2020||DIS0020||Thames Water state that Castle Water are incorrectly withholding settlement charges relating to SPIDS which Castle Water have stated are outside the SLA for completing the bilateral requests. Thames Water escalated 2159 out of the 3257 SPIDs to the DC. The DC found in Thames Water’s favour and required Castle Water to pay the outstanding wholesale charges. Castle Water has referred this decision to arbitration. Thames Water and Castle Water continue to work to agree resolution for the remaining Disputed SPIDs not escalated to the DC.|
|Unified||06/05/2020 Closed: 02/09/2021||DIS0031 (COD00061)||The Disputes Committee (DC) held a closed session to hear DIS0031, which had been brought by Elis UK Limited (ELIS) and in which the responding party was South West Water Ltd (SWW). In this Dispute, ELIS asserted that SWW had not complied with Schedule 3 of the Business Terms (Alternative Eligible Credit Support) in that they failed in their consideration to develop and introduce a credit offering that is in alignment with what Ofwat indicated to be notable examples of best practice. The DC found that SWW had not breached Schedule 3 of the Business Terms on the basis that the code contains no obligation to reach agreement. The DC noted that SWW had recently documented an agreement for Alternative Eligible Credit Support with ELIS, which was signed by both parties on 23rd June 2021 and posted on the MOSL website.|
|Unified||06/09/2021 Closed 28/09/21||DIS0034||Update 28/09/21. Both parties have confirmed this as closed. Meter was running backwards due to a cross connection within the customer’s premises which is causing backflow through meter. Original wording from 6/9/21: Castle Water Limited (Castle) have raised a non-trading dispute against Thames Water Limited (Thames) alleging that Thames is in breach of 4.2.1 of the Wholesale Contract Schedule 1, Part 2: Business Terms in that, as Contracting Wholesaler, it their responsibility to “provide, maintain, repair and, either routinely or where faulty, replace the meter(s)”, which in the case of the listed meters, they have failed to do.|
|Unified||06/10/2021||DIS0035||Castle Water Limited (Castle) have raised a dispute DIS0035 regarding a SPID which they assert entered the market with two actual reads from the wholesaler (Thames Water Limited (Thames) that have since been found to be estimates. Castle asserts that the pre-loaded reads were under-estimating the actual consumption; actual reads since market opening, compared to the pre-market opening reads suggest a rise in consumption that is not in line with the comparison of year on year actual reads since market opening. The primary charge has therefore been significantly inflated. No evidence exists of any leakage or explanation for the increased consumption.|
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).