Disputes

Once trading parties have considered the alternative approaches to resolution and attempted to resolve issues relating to the market codes informally between themselves, as set out in the Quick Start Guide, they may consider raising a formal Dispute. Where a Dispute is raised, the trading parties continue to attempt to resolve the matter between themselves but then either may refer the matter to the Disputes Committee (DC) and following the DC’s decision either may go to arbitration as set out in the Disputes Process – Stage by Stage Outline.

There are four types of Dispute, as described below, which trading parties can raise if they believe another party in the market is operating incorrectly. These are in relation to: incorrect data items, other aspects of the Wholesale-Retail Code (WRC), the Market Arrangements Code (MAC) and inaccuracy of settlement reports (with the Market Operator).

Where a trading party wishes to raise a formal Dispute their Contract Manager should submit the required information using the Disputes Form Information, Referral and Evidence Template (see documents below) to the email address as directed. The information should include details on the other trading party (or parties) involved, the type of Dispute and the specific aspects of the market codes the Dispute relates to, the details of the issue in dispute, information on the attempts to resolve it informally, and evidence of notification to the other trading party of the intent to raise a Dispute.

A list of active and recent disputes is provided below.

Trading Disputes

These are in relation to any errors in (including omission from) any Data Item contained within CSD 0301 (Data Catalogue) and so impact on Settlement and Primary Charges. Where the DC finds that there was an error, parties are required to correct it and MOSL to run a Dispute Settlement Run in certain cases.

Non-Trading Disputes

These relate to other aspects of the Wholesale-Retail Code (WRC). These are categorised into Operational, Market and Business Terms Non-Trading Disputes as well as Miscellaneous Non-Trading Disputes. The DC can decide whether there has been a breach of the Wholesale Contract or the WRC.

MAC Disputes

These are in respect of any act or omission of a trading party relating to the Market Arrangements Code (MAC). The DC can decide whether there has been a breach of the MAC.

Market Operator (MO) Disputes

These relate to Inaccurate Settlement which MOSL, as the MO, has investigated and potentially put in place a rectification plan under Section 5 of the Market Terms. Inaccurate Settlement is where a Wholesaler or Retailer

considers that a Settlement Report is inaccurate for any reason (other than due to any error in or omission of any Data Item). If the Wholesaler or Retailer has concerns with the MO’s response or lack of it, they may raise a Dispute. The DC can decide whether than has been an Inaccurate Settlement or whether the MO has provided or implemented a rectification plan.

Disputes List

Please find the list of all open disputes below, and disputes closed in the last 12 Months.

Dispute type Description Publication date Title Documentation
Unified 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”.

26/03/2021 Closed 13/09/21

DIS0032

-

Unified 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. 20/11/2020 DIS0021

-

Non Trading 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. 06/05/2020 COD00060

-

MAC 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. 19/11/2018 COD00054

-

MAC 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. 19/11/2018 COD00053

-

MAC 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. 19/11/2018 COD00051

-

MAC 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. 19/11/2018 COD00049

-

Unified 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.

20/11/2020 Closed 21/09/22

DIS0020

Resolved through London Court of International Arbitration

Unified 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.

06/05/2020 Closed 02/09/2021

DIS0031 (COD00061)

Please click here for full findings

Unified 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. 06/09/2021 Closed 28/09/21 DIS0034

-

Unified 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. 06/10/2021 Closed 08/12/21 (resolved) DIS0035

-

Unified Castle Water Limited (Castle) has raised a dispute against Thames Water (Thames) alleging that errors in data items have resulted in incorrect wholesale charges based on meters serving another customer’s premises. Castle also considers that Thames has not properly investigated its or the customer’s concerns and Castle has not received a response to its notice in October 2020 requesting resolution. As the customer switched to Sutton and East Surrey Water Services Limited (SES), that retailer may also have received incorrect wholesale charges. 27/01/22 Closed 10/02/22 (Resolved) DIS0036

-

Unified ConservAqua Limited has raised a non-trading dispute against Severn Trent Water Limited (STW) alleging that STW is in breach of the Operational Terms’ Process H7 - Application for Vacancy Incentive Scheme Payment with fundamental control failures leading to many claims being outstanding or rejected in error. Update 29 April 2022: ConserveAqua requested that this dispute be regarded as "Urgent". The Disputes Committee concurred, the Dispute is confirmed as Urgent and will be heard on 18 May 22. Closed: In the case of Non-Trading Disputes the DC’s remit is to assess whether there has been a breach of the Codes. The DC reached a majority decision regarding DIS0038 and found that Severn Trent Water had breached Process H7, Part B Step 2 of the Operational Terms on the basis that the Code contains an obligation on the Wholesaler to provide materially complete data to the registered Retailer from the applying Retailer.

20/04/22 Closed 25/5/22 Resolved

DIS0038

Please click here for full findings

Unified Castle Water Limited (Castle) has raised a dispute against Severn Trent Water Limited (Severn Trent) alleging that a new SPID was created in error and incorrectly allocated to Castle, which, along with the customer, questions that SPID’s charges. Castle considers that Severn Trent has not properly investigated this issue and has not received a response to its email sent in November 2021 requesting resolution. 11/02/22 Closed 10/3/22 (Resolved) DIS0037

-

Unified ConservAqua Limited has raised a non-trading dispute against Water Plus (WP) alleging that WP is in breach of the Operational Terms’ Process H7 - Application for Vacancy Incentive Scheme Payment with fundamental control failures leading to many claims being outstanding or rejected in error. Update 29 April 2022: ConserveAqua requested that this dispute be regarded as "Urgent". The Disputes Committee concurred, the Dispute is confirmed as Urgent and will be heard on 18 May 22. Closed: The DC considered DIS0039 on 18/5/22 and reached a majority decision, finding that Waterplus had technically breached a stated SLA within Process H7, Part B Step 3 of the Operational Terms.

21/04/22 Closed 25/5/22 Resolved

DIS0039

Please click here for full findings

Unified Castle Water Limited (Castle) has raised a dispute against Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames) alleging that Thames has failed to correct data items, including allocating the appropriate meters to a Supply Point and not deregistering a Supply Point, or to follow the Codes, which has prevented it from accurately billing the customer. Castle also notes that this follows months of correspondence between the parties. Update on 8/6/22: Both parties have reached a resolution on this Dispute 09/05/22 Closed (resolved) 8/6/22 DIS0041

-

Unified Castle Water Limited (Castle) has raised a dispute against Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames) alleging that Thames erroneously deregistered a Supply Point in breach of Section 4.8.2(d) of the Market Terms as well as failing to correct other data items or to follow the Codes, which has prevented it from accurately billing the customer. In Castle’s view this follows protracted correspondence between the parties. Update on 8/6/22: Both parties have reached a resolution on this Dispute 09/05/22 Closed (resolved) 8/6/22 DIS0040

-

Keep up to date

Receive the most relevant and up-to-date communications from MOSL by signing up to our mailing list.