Erroneous Switch Review: CSS Solution
Summary
The current solution for Erroneous Switch (ES) resolution is failing some Consumers, there are gaps in the process and several areas that could be considered for improvement. It has been a number of years since the process has been reviewed end to end. Since then, Faster Switching has been introduced and MHHS is on the horizon.
Latest update and next planned activity
Date of latest update
Latest Update
26/06/2026 On 25 June 2026, the REC Change Panel approved this extension to plan.
Impacts Overview
Impacted REC Parties and Market Participants
Energy Supplier
Impacted REC Documents
Schedule 30 - Resolution of Consumer Facing Switching and Billing Issues
Priority and rationale
Standard
Priority last updated on 29 May 2026
Solution development
Problem Statement
ES obligations are a key Consumer-impacting process which facilitate the quick resolution of Consumer detriment as efficiently as possible and requires an end-to-end review.
No documents available.
There is currently no Change Plan.
Original submission
Change details
- - -
14 Jan 2025
Change details
Erroneous Switch Review: CSS Solution
The current solution for Erroneous Switch (ES) resolution is failing some Consumers, there are gaps in the process and several areas that could be considered for improvement. It has been a number of years since the process has been reviewed end to end. Since then, Faster Switching has been introduced and MHHS is on the horizon.
• Parties are rejecting ES Requests so that they meet the REC obligations on response times.
• Parties sometimes incorrectly accept requests to meet the same timelines as they do not have the time necessary to allow for latency of data transfer between systems and to complete due diligence checks. Ultimately this forces Consumers through unnecessary Switch events.
• An inconsistent approach to Non-Domestic x Domestic ES.
• Performance Assurance challenges as not all ES resolutions are completed using industry systems.
• Consumers can be switched multiple times without the need to.
• Consumers can be inaccurately billed.
• Consumer trust in switching becomes eroded.
• Genuine Erroneous Switch resolutions are delayed as requests are rejected to meet obligations causing processes to be run multiple times.
• Confusion on which process to use with which Supplier.
• Escalation timelines are out of sync with process steps.
• Code Manager Escalation process is ineffective in its current guise.
• Parties sometimes incorrectly accept requests to meet the same timelines as they do not have the time necessary to allow for latency of data transfer between systems and to complete due diligence checks. Ultimately this forces Consumers through unnecessary Switch events.
• An inconsistent approach to Non-Domestic x Domestic ES.
• Performance Assurance challenges as not all ES resolutions are completed using industry systems.
• Consumers can be switched multiple times without the need to.
• Consumers can be inaccurately billed.
• Consumer trust in switching becomes eroded.
• Genuine Erroneous Switch resolutions are delayed as requests are rejected to meet obligations causing processes to be run multiple times.
• Confusion on which process to use with which Supplier.
• Escalation timelines are out of sync with process steps.
• Code Manager Escalation process is ineffective in its current guise.
• RFI to Suppliers to identify pain points and challenges in the process as is.
• Set up working group to develop the Solution based on Consumer and Supplier needs (Consumer focussed).
• A full review of the process should result in potential changes being identified in multiple areas. All suggestions for improvement would be considered.
Initial suggestions.
• Operational Account Manager (OAM) mediation before formal Disputes as part of a defined escalation process.
• Review the timeline of the process.
• Align escalation process with the timeline of the resolution.
• Mandate the use of the ES Resolution process where the Consumer is deemed to be Domestic on either side of the transfer.
• Mandate the use of the DTN if Industrial and Commercial (I&C) Suppliers opt in to the ES resolution process
• Mandate the use of DTN for Communication
• Document and mandate the use of a prescribed method of communication for I&C Suppliers that opt in to the ES Resolution process.
• Registration Market Message to be sent concurrent with acceptance of the ES.
• Set up working group to develop the Solution based on Consumer and Supplier needs (Consumer focussed).
• A full review of the process should result in potential changes being identified in multiple areas. All suggestions for improvement would be considered.
Initial suggestions.
• Operational Account Manager (OAM) mediation before formal Disputes as part of a defined escalation process.
• Review the timeline of the process.
• Align escalation process with the timeline of the resolution.
• Mandate the use of the ES Resolution process where the Consumer is deemed to be Domestic on either side of the transfer.
• Mandate the use of the DTN if Industrial and Commercial (I&C) Suppliers opt in to the ES resolution process
• Mandate the use of DTN for Communication
• Document and mandate the use of a prescribed method of communication for I&C Suppliers that opt in to the ES Resolution process.
• Registration Market Message to be sent concurrent with acceptance of the ES.
• A Supplier Party had a derogation & sandbox for the increase of the ES Resolution response time to reduce the number of instances of Consumers going through unnecessary ES processes. (RECDER_14)
• The findings proved that the trial was successful and consideration for a change to the obligation timeline should be progressed.
• Under the Guaranteed Standards of Performance (GSOP) Legislation Suppliers must compensate Consumers for various aspects of ES events, including taking too long to investigate and resolve. Extending the time to investigate and respond to the Market Message from two Working Days to 5-8 Working Days should have no material impact on those GSOP Payments, if the Codified timeline was met.
• I&C ES Resolution Process – OAMs and Parties are seeing instances where communications are being missed, causing delays to the resolution of ES for Consumers.
• The findings proved that the trial was successful and consideration for a change to the obligation timeline should be progressed.
• Under the Guaranteed Standards of Performance (GSOP) Legislation Suppliers must compensate Consumers for various aspects of ES events, including taking too long to investigate and resolve. Extending the time to investigate and respond to the Market Message from two Working Days to 5-8 Working Days should have no material impact on those GSOP Payments, if the Codified timeline was met.
• I&C ES Resolution Process – OAMs and Parties are seeing instances where communications are being missed, causing delays to the resolution of ES for Consumers.
Impacts
No details provided
Ability to pay, Billing accuracy, Security of supply, Switching experience, Trust and confidence
-
Schedule 30 - Resolution of Consumer Facing Switching and Billing Issues
-
No details provided
-
Secure Data Exchange Service Definition
-
No details provided
-
No details provided
-
No details provided
-
Energy Suppliers
-
No details provided
-
-
No details provided
Priority & timing
No
-
-
-
No details provided
Ability to pay, Billing accuracy, Security of supply, Switching experience, Trust and confidence
Activity
florentina.monea has been allocated as Lead Analyst.
Status has been changed to Issue Review.
james.hardy has been allocated as Lead Analyst.
vaishnsharma has been allocated as SME.