A Hierarchy of Collusion

This is a version of my intended first post. A much condensed piece now, since I’ve already set out the stall and shall try to resist the temptation for cathartic but redundant repetition. It’s really quite a small matter – just an everyday story of the cultural disingenuity that seems evermore to infect our existence. It  does, however, serve to illustrate the extent to which we have become inured to behaviour that pursues advantage relieved of any need for reasonable grounds.

So this is it; written just before the pandemic struck.

Several months ago I received a substantial gas bill – no great surprise; the meter hadn’t been read for some time and I settled the account without concern. My curiosity, however, was aroused by a “replacement bill” which substituted fabricated estimates in place of the original billing history. I investigated and noted that a Supplier’s licence condition had been introduced some 18 months earlier in connection with the issue of “back bills”. The Supplier’s bill did not appear to comply with this mandatory condition and I telephoned the office; primarily just to throw light on the apparent discrepancy.

Up to a dozen phone conversations, emails and letters ensued. All was perfectly good humoured and cordial but substantially confused and incoherent. Indeed on my first telephone enquiry I was driven to ask whether the individual was being deliberately obtuse or simply didn’t understand my concern.

On more than one occasion I was told that the matter had now been resolved and the complaint would be closed. On another I was given to understand I would have to re-submit to move the complaint to another stage. There was an evident determination to disregard the significance of the licence condition with repeated recourse to a previous, but now superseded, voluntary code.

The principal intention appeared to be obfuscation, discouragement and delay but eventually, and with clear reluctance, a deadlock letter was issued. I was now entitled to approach the Ombudsman. Within a week of my submission and without further investigation the Supplier made an immediate credit adjustment to my account in excess of £1,000.

Although this offer now seemed to reflect proper compliance I remained concerned that an apparent attempt to mislead had  received no acknowledgement or explanation. I declined the proposal, considering it an inadequate response.

The Ombudsman duly investigated and upheld the complaint. The credit already applied was confirmed and a further credit demanded in recognition of a previous instance of non-compliance revealed through an analysis of account history. This was an item of which I was aware but had not seen fit to press. Finally an additional payment was sought as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the shortfall in service and inconvenience caused and, perhaps more significantly, a written apology required. It was noted that the Ombudsman could not advise the company on matters of internal procedure since this was a business decision.

I was reassured – not so much by the outcome but by the rational and painstaking competence of the Ombudsman’s findings. I would have been equally satisfied if that same rigour had identified a flaw in my understanding and with a different result. I had been heard. I rang the service to establish the impact (if any) of the outcome. I was advised that findings were collated and results forwarded to Ofgem. I felt the Ombudsman service had fulfilled its role and accepted the outcome.

The remedies were actioned promptly – adjustments to the account, a goodwill payment. I missed the apology. I had hoped for a letter, perhaps some sort of explanation however minimal. In the event less than two lines were incorporated within a statement of action attached to the Ombudsman site – superficial and barely adequate. An apology recognising a shortfall in ‘customer service’ and inconvenience caused with an assurance that this wasn’t the level of service they aim to provide. No acknowledgement of culpability (the lawyers see to that), no proposals to address shortcomings.

Why do we indulge such disingenuous nonsense? This wasn’t a careless lapse, it was a consistent and deliberate attempt by several employees to mislead. The company employs procedures that can only serve to frustrate the observance of a mandatory licence condition. When challenged they dissemble until the last possible moment.

No doubt this is a business decision; more profitable to evade and pay the price when caught than to comply. More beneficial to the shareholders (of which, ironically, I am one) and the management’s remuneration packages. I wonder how many other customers are unwittingly contributing to the cause?

This is the routine dissimulation of which I speak. Not just a household name and one of our principal suppliers of essential infrastructure but all the individuals who spoke on the phone and placed their names on correspondence. All complicit in the deceit. I won’t speculate as to motivation – there’s a history of research into questionable compliance – but presumably the CEO, policy makers and lawyers are all aware but unconcerned that they profit from dishonesty?

Does it matter?  There seems to be no stigma – just a question of priorities and getting away with things. Truth may be a tricky call but deceit is a clear choice. Habitual deceit is corrosive; it erodes trust, it unpicks the fabric, alienates and undermines equitable coexistence. Opportunistic deceit may appear an effective strategy for certain individuals but surely a poor thesis for cooperation, mutual understanding and social cohesion?

Why so prevalent and unchallenged? Complacency; indifference; reluctance to question, to risk involvement, to acknowledge or perhaps realise personal jeopardy? All familiar hallmarks of the bystander and although possibly without malice their silence enables aberrant behaviour to become normalised.

It’s the deliberate deceit that most offends. If we lose the habit of thinking for ourselves and recognising the perils of moral delinquency we’re left only with institutions and regulatory mechanisms to guard against excess. On this occasion the Ombudsman service performed that role proficiently albeit with some uncertainty as to the ultimate effect. These mechanisms however are not universal, thus tending to lend a tacit legitimacy to behaviour that escapes dedicated provision. And anyway, how many others are misled and with what impact? How many defer to an assumed authority and never question the orthodoxy?

As I say, a small incident in itself, but it does demonstrate how so many can contribute to a hierarchy of collusion that maintains the myth. From those propounding the deceit in service of their needs, through the acolytes who detect benefit in extending a dogma, to those finding comfort in conformity and to those who simply look the other way. All confound the essential rationality underpinning a coherent society; all spread the contagion.

That’s about it, though I suppose in touching on the energy market there are other dimensions which might stand scrutiny at some point. I’ve always felt a certain resistance to those exhortations to “switch” and contribute to an industry that fulfils no real underlying need. We all need energy but the basic product remains the same regardless of supplier. Their commodity exists in providing a vehicle for competition. This may benefit some consumers but probably at the expense of others. Doubtless it’s profitable for “switchers” and “suppliers”. The upshot is that every bill for energy includes a element to fund an activity that is essentially superfluous to the delivery of vital infrastructure. An activity that generates its own needs and can seem to impart a certain shame on those forsaking an opportunity for virtuous contribution to the competitive milieu.

Undoubtedly a subjective impression and might be better to revisit some other time with more facts and figures! We’re a very busy people though, and we’re burning up our world in the process. It might prove helpful to curb those more redundant activities which ultimately offer little more than a platform for the exercise of competitive dominance.