Limitation for backdating of rebates/charges under Schedule 32

Consideration was given to the potential impacts with the consensus being that proceeding with a derogation was likely to be in the best interests of all Parties (i.e., Suppliers and DNOs/IDNOs). Whilst it is appreciated that Suppliers would prefer to be in a position of receiving invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, and indeed DNOs/IDNOs would prefer to be issuing invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, in the case of some DNOs/IDNOs, they’d be in a position of applying additional charges past the standard final Reconciliation Run for which there is no process for. Equally, where rebates are owed, and if a manual process was to be used, that this may cause issues with Suppliers validation processes, given the volume/scale of sites impacted by this initial Annual Allocation Review (i.e., likely to total in excess of 50,000 sites).

Consideration was given to the potential impacts with the consensus being that proceeding with a derogation was likely to be in the best interests of all Parties (i.e., Suppliers and DNOs/IDNOs). Whilst it is appreciated that Suppliers would prefer to be in a position of receiving invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, and indeed DNOs/IDNOs would prefer to be issuing invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, in the case of some DNOs/IDNOs, they’d be in a position of applying additional charges past the standard final Reconciliation Run for which there is no process for. Equally, where rebates are owed, and if a manual process was to be used, that this may cause issues with Suppliers validation processes, given the volume/scale of sites impacted by this initial Annual Allocation Review (i.e., likely to total in excess of 50,000 sites).

Consideration was given to the potential impacts with the consensus being that proceeding with a derogation was likely to be in the best interests of all Parties (i.e., Suppliers and DNOs/IDNOs). Whilst it is appreciated that Suppliers would prefer to be in a position of receiving invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, and indeed DNOs/IDNOs would prefer to be issuing invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, in the case of some DNOs/IDNOs, they’d be in a position of applying additional charges past the standard final Reconciliation Run for which there is no process for. Equally, where rebates are owed, and if a manual process was to be used, that this may cause issues with Suppliers validation processes, given the volume/scale of sites impacted by this initial Annual Allocation Review (i.e., likely to total in excess of 50,000 sites).

Consideration was given to the potential impacts with the consensus being that proceeding with a derogation was likely to be in the best interests of all Parties (i.e., Suppliers and DNOs/IDNOs). Whilst it is appreciated that Suppliers would prefer to be in a position of receiving invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, and indeed DNOs/IDNOs would prefer to be issuing invoices that account for all relevant rebates/charges, in the case of some DNOs/IDNOs, they’d be in a position of applying additional charges past the standard final Reconciliation Run for which there is no process for. Equally, where rebates are owed, and if a manual process was to be used, that this may cause issues with Suppliers validation processes, given the volume/scale of sites impacted by this initial Annual Allocation Review (i.e., likely to total in excess of 50,000 sites).