Yes but it's the other way round.but as the position of the first pointer is very close to 3, shouldn't the second pointer be like 7, 8 or 9, rather than 0?
Why?Personally, I think the meter is likely faulty.
Well, obviously it is rare but happens every 10,000 units.These old ones rarely have so many pointers so close to a number.
Not if they think there is nothing wrong with it, they won't.Your supplier would replace this type of meter for free.
“Read
You cannot do it like that.the dials from left to right.
They are not spot on accurate.If the pointer is between the two numbers, always take the lower number.
So you do need the one on the right first to determine for sure then.If the pointer is directly over a number, write down that one. If the pointer falls between 9 and 0, write down 9 and reduce the reading you've already taken for the dial on it's left by one.”
Previous readings will certainly clarify the situation, but not for the reason you give. Since the reading has only recently gone over 30,000, any previous ones would almost certainly start with a "2", but the most recent ones should start "29", therefore clarifying the situation.with luck, the supplier will have a recent reading or readings on file, beginning with a "3" and will reject and query a reading beginning with a "2"
As EFLI has said, that seems to be very strange logic. The meter may, of course, be faulty, but even a non-faulty one will, inevitably, occasionally show the sort of thing we are seeing here.Personally, I think the meter is likely faulty. These old ones rarely have so many pointers so close to a number.
Don’t take issue with my quote. It was from the EDF website. I would hope they have done their research.Why?
Well, obviously it is rare but happens every 10,000 units.
Not if they think there is nothing wrong with it, they won't.
You cannot do it like that.
They are not spot on accurate.
So you do need the one on the right first to determine for sure then.
What difference would you see on the leftmost pointer between 29999 and 30000?
Whether or not they have 'done their research', they clearly have not adequately thought through or field-tested their instructions - since, in the OP's case, obeying those instructions would (as the OP's landlord is witness!) result in an error of 10,000 kWh in the reading!Don’t take issue with my quote. It was from the EDF website. I would hope they have done their research.
Indeed so, particularly when (as in this case) the erroneous reading would be consdierably lower than previous readings.If someone makes a severe under-reading then the system is likely to simply reject said reading.
I suppose that depends upon how cynical you are - many would say that they would be more likely to err in the other direction!If they make a severe over-reading then the supplier may well be left with a very angry customer complaining about their bill for thousands of pounds worth of electricity. .... So I wonder if the guidance is deliberately erring on the side of under-reading.
Well, it obviously ought to be clear and proper guidance as to how to do it properly - which it clearly isn't.What is the point of guidance? Why not state properly how to do it properly? Mistakes will still be made.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local