I can understnad the motives for doing this, however forcing control back from the utility undermines the operating model of these intelligent tarriffs. Its possible it could even lead to them being withdrawn entirely.
Octopus hold a fair chunk of responsiblity here - they have rolled out a product which is dependent on integrations which are simply unrealiable, and the (hopefully limited) response that has prompted in some of the more tech savvy customers shouldnt really be all that surprising.
TL;DR - If Intelligent Octopus isnt working or you dont like the real world implications of its use - leave and go on a traditional product until they work the kinks out. Forcing back control via technical workarounds causes more problems than you solve for the wider customer base.
In the T&C under 2.4.2 Intelligent Octopus Flux the key clauses are:
2.4.2.8(d) – Exclusive rights to enter contracts for Demand Response Services with my Low Carbon Technology.
2.4.2.8(e) – Exclusive right to control my Low Carbon Technology to deliver on those services.
2.4.2.8(f) – Prohibition on joining third party Demand Response schemes.
2.4.2.9–2.4.2.10 – They will “use reasonable efforts” to manage charging/discharging, but accept no liability for compatibility, preference alignment, wear, scheduling failure, or electrical faults.
The way I see it: if Octopus accepts no responsibility for damage or operational issues, then I must take responsibility myself. That means retaining at least some ability to protect my equipment when needed.
At this stage, I don’t have the patience to keep going in circles on this. My stance remains unchanged: I will stay compliant with the T&Cs as I and the Consumer Law interprets them, but if I ever need to challenge Octopus or GivEnergy, I will.
Frankly, this has gone beyond a forum discussion, what’s needed is a clear position from Octopus, GivEnergy, or a solicitor. I may reach out to Black Belt Barrister to see if he’s willing to analyse the legal position on this.
As with so many things in the UK right now, if we don’t challenge ambiguous or overreaching terms, companies will continue to push boundaries, and I’m not in the habit of giving up my rights without question.
I will stay compliant with the T&Cs as I and the Consumer Law interprets them
You should do what you think is right. But let’s not kid ourselves, there are no contract lawyers in this thread and this stands in contrast to the legal team at octopus who would have created / vetted these terms.
If you want to challenge, you absolutely should. But it’s worth remembering what these tarrifs are intended to do when issuing that challenge, and that you can walk away and sign up for a different tariff at any time. Contract law generally precludes having your cake and eating it.
…… or quietly carry on with what you are doing, in the hope that Octopus do not remove the local control loophole that allows you to do it .
I’m not entirely convinced that publicly sharing technical instructions for bypassing these controls—especially on the manufacturer’s website—can be reasonably characterised as doing it “quietly”.
I’ve scheduled 4 Battery Calibrations, since joining IOF (October 2023). None of them have looked the same (in terms of charge/discharge profile). I’ve seen calibration periods lasting 3 hours, all the way up to 13 hours. (Have always tried to set them around midnight, which is typically the beginning of the quietest period for IOF.) I probably don’t need to say it, but throughout the calibrations, IOF is sending it’s usual “Enable Eco Mode”, and “Battery Reserve % Limit” messages (all of which, as usual, fail).
I guess, strictly speaking, running a Battery Calibration is in breach of the IOF Ts&Cs - I’m breaching the ‘exclusivity’ clause. However, I’ve never seen Octopus remotely run a Calibration on my system…
Deleted all my posts on control, no point sharing if the endgame is “comply or get cut off.”
I’ve learned the rules: if you challenge the system, they don’t argue, they take away what you’ve already paid for. Steam taught me that years ago. £300 lost, lesson learned.
So here I am, happily giving up my rights like everyone else. Feels good to be part of the herd.
holdendyej Octopus won’t schedule battery calibrations because they simply don’t care.
The other option is to let them hammer the battery until it becomes faulty, then hope GivEnergy will give you a new one. But here’s the real question, will GivEnergy find a clause to refuse the warranty because we’ve given “exclusive” access to Octopus?
This gets into legal territory: if GivEnergy allows us to be locked out and unable to perform any battery health changes or exercises, and Octopus clearly states they take no responsibility if the battery is damaged, then whose responsibility is it?
We’ve been a bit quiet as we were waiting for Octopus to come back to us. Fingers crossed they have sorted the issue we were experiencing so we should be good now. Thanks to everyone who helped.
@ drrajmistry Let us know how you get on. My friend with a Tesla Powerwall is running into similar issues, odd charge/discharge cycles and rates that make no sense. The kicker? She’s still waiting for her Feed-in Tariff approval, which could take weeks, yet Octopus has already taken control of her system and is forcing grid charging and 9.0 kW discharges.
When she queried it, the response she got was basically: “So what do you want me to do about it?”, followed by a warning that if she removed their API access it could delay her move onto OIF even further. That feels pretty cheeky: they can take control instantly, but the customer is left waiting weeks for the tariff approval they’re meant to benefit from.
I tried setting up Home Assistant for her to regain local oversight, but Tesla integration is more locked down. It looks like either the installer changed the local access password, or Tesla Customer Support need to enable it.
For now she’s switched to Off-Grid mode. Her system can power the house indefinitely, and at least it stops Octopus (or the grid) effectively getting free electricity while she’s waiting on DNO approval. Thankfully Tesla doesn’t block users from their own systems, and Off-Grid also prevents OIF from pushing through schedules or overrides that aren’t in the customer’s interest.
I had a similar problem when I chose Octoplus’s recommendation of using OF after GivEnergy battery install. I lost total control of my inverter & even the installer couldn’t help!
I changed tariff to Cosy Octopus but it made no difference. Octopus Energy said they had removed my inverter from their system & I should have regained control of my inverter but the ‘lock out’ remained!
Then in Account Settings> Manage Account Security> Manage givenergy.cloud API Tokens> Manage API Tokens I found an Octopus API-api entry; there was an option to ‘revoke’ which I chose & I immediately regained control of my inverter!
Hope this helps.
.
