Crossed Meters Process: Clarifications and Support
Summary
This issue seeks to solve is the gap between the documented REC Crossed Meters process and how it is being applied operationally. The aim is to ensure all parties fully understand the process, apply it consistently, and have the support necessary to achieve timely, correct resolution of Crossed Meter cases.
Latest update and next planned activity
Date of latest update
Latest Update
12/05/2026 - The Information Request has closed. The Code Manager is curently assessing the responses
Impacts Overview
Impacted REC Parties and Market Participants
Distribution Network Operator
Energy Supplier
Gas Transporter
Meter Asset Manager
Meter Asset Provider
Meter Operator Agent
Third Party Intermediary
Impacted REC Documents
Schedule 1 - Interpretations and Definitions
Schedule 7 - Energy Theft Reduction
Schedule 11 - Prepayment Arrangements
Schedule 14 - Metering Operations
Schedule 30 - Resolution of Consumer Facing Switching and Billing Issues
Priority and rationale
Standard
Priority last updated on 17 Sep 2026
Solution development
No documents available.
There is currently no Change Plan.
Original submission
Change details
- - -
13 Feb 2026
Change details
Crossed Meters Process: Clarifications and Support
A Crossed Meter refers to an issue where the Energy Meter recorded for a Premises is associated with another Metering Point, which can result in the Customer being billed for the energy usage at another Premises. Crossed Meters only occur when more than one Premises is involved and different Suppliers are responsible for the different Metering Points. The Suppliers of the affected Metering Points are responsible for investigating and resolving Crossed Meters efficiently and completely.
Although a formal Crossed Meters process is already defined within the REC parties have informed the Code Manager, during the solution analysis for I0172, that the process is not always being followed in practice.
Feedback indicates that:
• The existing process is misunderstood by some Parties, particularly regarding roles, responsibilities, and required steps.
• There is inconsistency in how Parties interpret and apply the documented process, leading to delays and avoidable back‑and‑forth.
• Some Suppliers and Network Operators have expressed that the current guidance is not sufficiently clear or accessible, resulting in differing expectations around evidence, communications, and ownership.
• Parties have asked for additional support materials, examples, and clarification to help them follow the process correctly and resolve cases more efficiently.
Therefore, the issue seeks to solve is the gap between the documented REC Crossed Meters process and how it is being applied operationally. The aim is to ensure all parties fully understand the process, apply it consistently, and have the support necessary to achieve timely, correct resolution of Crossed Meter cases.
Although a formal Crossed Meters process is already defined within the REC parties have informed the Code Manager, during the solution analysis for I0172, that the process is not always being followed in practice.
Feedback indicates that:
• The existing process is misunderstood by some Parties, particularly regarding roles, responsibilities, and required steps.
• There is inconsistency in how Parties interpret and apply the documented process, leading to delays and avoidable back‑and‑forth.
• Some Suppliers and Network Operators have expressed that the current guidance is not sufficiently clear or accessible, resulting in differing expectations around evidence, communications, and ownership.
• Parties have asked for additional support materials, examples, and clarification to help them follow the process correctly and resolve cases more efficiently.
Therefore, the issue seeks to solve is the gap between the documented REC Crossed Meters process and how it is being applied operationally. The aim is to ensure all parties fully understand the process, apply it consistently, and have the support necessary to achieve timely, correct resolution of Crossed Meter cases.
The inconsistent understanding and application of the Crossed Meters process is resulting in several material impacts across the market:
1. Delayed resolution of Crossed Meter cases
When parties misunderstand or do not follow the documented process, cases take significantly longer to resolve. This leads to extended periods of incorrect billing, disputed reads, and customer confusion.
2. Increased operational effort for parties and the Code Manager
Varying approaches generate repeated back‑and‑forth communications, additional evidence requests, and unnecessary escalations. The Code Manager also receives more clarification queries than expected, adding to administrative overhead.
3. Inconsistent Consumer outcomes
Consumers affected by Crossed Meter issues are experiencing variability in how quickly and effectively issues are resolved. Some cases progress smoothly, while others stall due to inconsistent process interpretation, resulting in frustration and reduced trust.
4. Higher risk of billing inaccuracies and debt build-up
Where the process is not followed correctly, incorrect meter allocations, erroneous consumption data, and inaccurate settlements can persist, causing financial detriment to Consumers, suppliers, or both.
5. Misalignment between Parties leads to disputes
Different interpretations of responsibilities (e.g. who should investigate first and what evidence is required) create confusion and, in some cases, formal disputes or breakdown in market collaboration.
6. Reduced efficiency in market operations
A process that works in theory but is not consistently followed undermines overall market efficiency. The benefits intended by the REC Crossed Meters process are not fully realised.
1. Delayed resolution of Crossed Meter cases
When parties misunderstand or do not follow the documented process, cases take significantly longer to resolve. This leads to extended periods of incorrect billing, disputed reads, and customer confusion.
2. Increased operational effort for parties and the Code Manager
Varying approaches generate repeated back‑and‑forth communications, additional evidence requests, and unnecessary escalations. The Code Manager also receives more clarification queries than expected, adding to administrative overhead.
3. Inconsistent Consumer outcomes
Consumers affected by Crossed Meter issues are experiencing variability in how quickly and effectively issues are resolved. Some cases progress smoothly, while others stall due to inconsistent process interpretation, resulting in frustration and reduced trust.
4. Higher risk of billing inaccuracies and debt build-up
Where the process is not followed correctly, incorrect meter allocations, erroneous consumption data, and inaccurate settlements can persist, causing financial detriment to Consumers, suppliers, or both.
5. Misalignment between Parties leads to disputes
Different interpretations of responsibilities (e.g. who should investigate first and what evidence is required) create confusion and, in some cases, formal disputes or breakdown in market collaboration.
6. Reduced efficiency in market operations
A process that works in theory but is not consistently followed undermines overall market efficiency. The benefits intended by the REC Crossed Meters process are not fully realised.
This Issue would involve targeted engagement with the Parties most affected to fully understand how the existing Crossed Meters process is being interpreted and applied in practice.
This engagement should focus on:
• Exploring the current REC process in detail with impacted stakeholders to identify the specific steps or requirements that are unclear or being interpreted inconsistently.
• Understanding where and why the process may not be followed accurately, including any operational challenges, gaps in knowledge, or misaligned expectations between Parties.
• Assessing the scale and materiality of the issue, including how frequently non‑compliance occurs, what types of cases are most affected, and the level of Consumer or Party impact.
• Determining whether changes to the REC or associated operational processes are necessary, based on evidence gathered through stakeholder engagement.
• Identifying what additional support and guidance may be required from the Code Manager—such as guidance documents, worked examples, process maps, or webinar sessions to help Parties follow the process consistently and effectively.
This engagement should focus on:
• Exploring the current REC process in detail with impacted stakeholders to identify the specific steps or requirements that are unclear or being interpreted inconsistently.
• Understanding where and why the process may not be followed accurately, including any operational challenges, gaps in knowledge, or misaligned expectations between Parties.
• Assessing the scale and materiality of the issue, including how frequently non‑compliance occurs, what types of cases are most affected, and the level of Consumer or Party impact.
• Determining whether changes to the REC or associated operational processes are necessary, based on evidence gathered through stakeholder engagement.
• Identifying what additional support and guidance may be required from the Code Manager—such as guidance documents, worked examples, process maps, or webinar sessions to help Parties follow the process consistently and effectively.
During the solution analysis for REC Issue I0172 – End to End New Connections Process Review, several Parties highlighted that one of the most significant challenges they experience relates to Crossed Meters.
Through subsequent engagement at the Change Issues Group, Parties advised the Code Manager that, although the Crossed Meters process is well defined and works in principle, it is not always being followed correctly or interpreted consistently in practice.
The Change Issues Group therefore supported raising a separate Issue to examine the Crossed Meters process in more detail, identify any blockers preventing accurate application, and explore whether additional clarifications or supporting materials from the Code Manager would help Parties apply the process more effectively.
Additionally, as part of the I0172 process, an Information Request was issued to Parties regarding the New Connections process. Although the request focused on New Connections, many of the responses also highlighted challenges and concerns relating to Crossed Meters. These Information Request submissions were provided on a confidential basis and have not been published by the Code Manager.
However, the common themes identified across the responses will help shape the scope of this Issue and inform which areas of the Crossed Meters process should be prioritised for further review and clarification.
Through subsequent engagement at the Change Issues Group, Parties advised the Code Manager that, although the Crossed Meters process is well defined and works in principle, it is not always being followed correctly or interpreted consistently in practice.
The Change Issues Group therefore supported raising a separate Issue to examine the Crossed Meters process in more detail, identify any blockers preventing accurate application, and explore whether additional clarifications or supporting materials from the Code Manager would help Parties apply the process more effectively.
Additionally, as part of the I0172 process, an Information Request was issued to Parties regarding the New Connections process. Although the request focused on New Connections, many of the responses also highlighted challenges and concerns relating to Crossed Meters. These Information Request submissions were provided on a confidential basis and have not been published by the Code Manager.
However, the common themes identified across the responses will help shape the scope of this Issue and inform which areas of the Crossed Meters process should be prioritised for further review and clarification.
Impacts
No details provided
Ability to pay, Billing accuracy, On site experience, Switching experience, Trust and confidence
-
Schedule 1 - Interpretations and Definitions, Schedule 7 - Energy Theft Reduction, Schedule 11 - Prepayment Arrangements, Schedule 14 - Metering Operations, Schedule 30 - Resolution of Consumer Facing Switching and Billing Issues
-
Consolidated Metering Code of Practice (CoMCoP)
-
Central Data Service Provider Further Services Service Definition, Secure Data Exchange Service Definition
-
Data Item Catalogue, Market Message Catalogue
-
No details provided
-
No details provided
-
Distribution Network Operators, Energy Suppliers, Gas Transporters, Meter Asset Manager, Meter Asset Providers, Meter Operator Agent, Third-Party Intermediary
-
No details provided
-
-
No details provided
Priority & timing
No
-
-
-
No details provided
Ability to pay, Billing accuracy, On site experience, Switching experience, Trust and confidence