Report Catalogue FAQs


Question 1: What is the cut-off for providing data?

Answer: Data should be provided by the 1st working day of the month, with a one month lag from the performance month. For example data for the month of January will be required by the first working date of March and will form the input for the March Risk Assessment.

For data submitted at a lower frequency submission will be due by the 1st working day of the 2nd month after the quarter – i.e. the same one month lag principle applies. For example data relating to the first quarter of the year will be due on the first working day in May.

Our expectation is that for the majority of data provision (and particularly for larger organisations) data provision should be based on automated/scripted data extracts and should not involve significant manual collation activities. Therefore, we would look to gradually shorten the submission window over time once parties have had sufficient opportunity to build automated processes.

Note this is a change from the timing previously communicated which sought to obtain data to allow reporting to the PAB without the month’s lag – however based on feedback from parties this has been amended to provide additional time for reporting to be produced and submitted.

Question 2: When will data first be required?

Answer: As recently communicated and based on feedback from parties a updated transitional approach will be adopted.

Data already available under existing arrangements and/or already reported under existing obligations (e.g. Ofgem complaints reporting) will be required for performance period September 2021 (hence data required 1st November 2021). This therefore relates specifically to the following items in the report catalogue: item 101 (Ofgem Complaints Data), existing PPMIP performance reports (items 1240 – 1310) and item 1330 (SMIS Survey Response) and item 1340 (Supplier Theft Files).

All other data requests have been deferred and will not be required until January 2022. Data submitted for January 2022 should cover the period 1 September 2021-30 November 2021.

Note if parties wish to submit reports prior to January 2022, including to confirm processes and any validation questions the facility to do so will be available.

Question 3: What is the lead time for provision of reports?

Answer: As noted in FAQ #2 an updated transitional approach has been adopted for the initial set of data provision.

For future changes to the Report Catalogue as much notice as possible will be provided however for the avoidance of doubt a standard six-month lead time will not be applied as an appropriate lead time will depend on the nature and extent of changes. In line with the expectations of increasing digitisation and the digital first principles of the REC timely access to and availability of data is anticipated.

In circumstances were a party cannot provide data in the required timescale this should be communicated to the Code Manager as early as possible and, depending on the circumstances, alternate approaches may be required to assess and monitor the relevant retail risk(s) until such data can be provided. This may require application of specific PATs or a greater level of direct assurance testing by the Code Manager until data is provided.

Finally we would highlight that it is expected that the first major change to the Report Catalogue will relate to CSS go-live and implementation of REC 3.0.

Question 4: Can PPMIP data be obtained directly rather than via suppliers?

Answer: PPMIP are not parties to the REC. We have made initial contact with PPMIPs via the PPMF to explore if centralising data provision (subject to supplier agreement) would be possible, however these conversations have not sufficiently progressed to say with confidence data could be provided via this route by REC go-live.

We expect to progress these discussions as a priority during the extended transition period to seek to enable this option if possible. Supplier party support for this will be required.

Question 5: For reopened complaints, how should the date of reopening, date of original resolution or date of new resolution be captured?

Answer: For re-opened complaints the date of reopening should be provided as the “Date of Complaint” and the new resolution date be provided as date of resolution once applicable. The Report Catalogue has been updated to clarify this guidance.

Question 6: Where possible can information be obtained from a third party to provide consistency and lessen the burden on Parties?

Answer: We have sought to apply this principle where possible – with a significant portion of data required being sourced through central sources and expected to increase for REC 3.0. If there are specific instances where you believe the data requested is available from a central source we have not identified or is replicated by existing regulatory/compliance reporting please provide us details and we are happy to consider switching to an alternate sourcing option.

Question 7: How are changes to the Report Catalogue managed? Do they go through the REC Change Process?

Answer: The Report Catalogue is subject to review and approval by the PAB. It is not part of the REC itself and hence is not subject to the code modifications/change process.

Question 8: Are you requesting both the existing Ofgem reporting and additional complaints information?

Answer: Correct. We are requesting the existing Ofgem reporting given this is already produced and available from parties. In addition and in line with our approach of utilising more granular data we have requested the breakdown of complaints information  to input into our risk assessment determinations.

Question 9: The complaints report to be completed by Networks is very electricity biased in places (MPID / category) – could you confirm if gas networks are also required to provide information?

Answer: We can confirm that gas networks should also provide data. Based on feedback we have updated the requirements to better reflect both power and gas network operators.

Question 10: Can you clarify the scope of items 100 / 101?

Answer: Report item 100 is a more granular breakdown of complaints related data, as detailed in the catalogue. We have sought to define this using attributes (e.g. category) already utilised for complaints reporting that is produced to Ofgem in order for parties to leverage existing processes (which we would expect involve aggregating complaints data for the purposes of Ofgem reporting) however this is an additional report that does not represent an existing data provision to Ofgem.

Report item 101 is the pre-existing monthly and quarterly aggregated complaints reports that are already provided to Ofgem and that we are requesting parties also provide to the REC Code Manager.

Question 11: Could you confirm whether data on all complaints is required from suppliers, or just relating to erroneous transfers?

Answer: Given the focus on customer outcomes within the REC definition of Retail Risk we expect that complaints related information will provide insight into a wide range of Risks and Risk Drivers. This was not fully captured in the mapping to the Risk Register in the Catalogue and has been updated.

To provide clarity on the specific complaints to be reported by Supplier Parties we have listed out in the Report Catalogue the specific categories (utilising the same categories as existing Ofgem reporting) that should be included.

Question 12: For the DNO complaints data (item 90) what kind of complaints fall in the scope? Is it any complaints from any stakeholder?

Answer: All complaints relating to end customer/consumer supply should be included. We have updated the Report Catalogue to provide this clarity.

Question 13: In the complaints report (ref “100”) there is a requirement to provide a MPxN. We believe this should be an optional data item, as not all complaints have an MPxN, or further guidance should be provided on what is required

Answer: We expect that the vast majority of complaints will be related to a customer or prospective customer – and hence an MPxN should be provided. In exceptional circumstances where no MPxN is relevant this can be omitted and we have updated the Report catalogue to reflect this.

Question 14: The data for Complaint Status (item 100) is different to that currently used for Ofgem reporting. Would it make more sense to align the request with the Ofgem Reporting?

Answer: We agree alignment is helpful and have updated the Report Catalogue to reflect the Ofgem definitions.

Question 15: If a complaint is received and closed in the same month, would we expect to report that twice in the same month (once under each status)?

Answer: It is not necessary to report it twice – please include as a Resolved Complaint – the date information and lack of inclusion in previous reporting will allow us to infer the complaint was opened and resolved in the same month. The Report Catalogue has been updated to clarify this guidance.

Question 16: How should complaints that apply to multiple MPxNs be displayed within your reporting? We interpret that the requirements ask us to report multiple rows with the same complaint reference if it relates to multiple meter points.

Answer: This is the correct interpretation. As noted in the Report Catalogue these will be counted as a single complaint.

Question 17: Has consideration been made of existing reporting (including e.g. to Ofgem) / We feel there is overlap with existing reporting requirements?

Answer: Existing reporting has been considered when developing the reporting catalogue insofar as possible. In many cases existing reporting does not provide the level of disaggregation of data required to enable the data driven risk based approach being applied to REC Performance Assurance.

However we have sought to leverage existing reporting definitions where possible – for example utilising the same categories of complaints as Ofgem but requesting data at a more granular level. In most cases our expectation is that parties will already have to obtain the more granular information required before aggregating for existing reporting and hence in essence in many cases we are requesting the underlying data rather than aggregated reports, as discussed more fully in FAQ 19.

We recognise there is a wide variety and range of existing reporting in place and whilst reasonable effort has been made to consider existing reporting if parties are aware of a reporting item that would fulfil the same requirements as specified and which we are not requested please feel free to contact us and we are happy to investigate further.

Question 18: Do we need to submit reports at a Group level? We have acceded with multiple roles/licences. We would rather only have to submit a single report.

Answer: Data can be provided at either level, whichever is easier for the party.

Parties can choose to have Performance Assurance applied at a Group or Licence level, per REC Role – this will be notified via the REC Portal.

If data is submitted at a group level then where the option to aggregate licences for performance assurance has been adopted then data will be analysed as provided.

If the option to aggregate licences has not been adopted then:

  • Data will be split to licence level using MPxN data where possible;
  • For pre-existing (aggregate) files these should be provided at the same level as is currently required.

The report catalogue will be amended to clarify this.

Question 19: Why is data requested at an MPxN level? Why can’t data be provided in aggregate and then detail provided on an ‘as needed ‘ basis?

Answer: We have requested data at an MPxN level for three main reasons:

  1. It allows data from various sources to be linked, which we require to perform assurance against various retail risks. 
  2. A core principle of our assurance approach is root-cause analysis, this will be facilitated by access to MPxN level detail.
  3. To support follow-up (when required) with parties on specific deviations/exceptions we want to be able to pin-point enquiries rather than asking about exception numbers contained in aggregate reports.

Our data driven, risk assessment approach is consistent with the overall REC Digitisation Strategy and includes a monthly cycle of analytics and risk assessment. An alternative process by which aggregated data is provided and then further detail requested for follow-up would be more time-consuming and drawn-out, given the cycle of assessment; this would likely increase the overall party burden, build in delays and decrease the value derived from the new approach.

Question 20: Have GDPR/Data Protection matters been considered in the context of obtaining MPxN level data?

Answer: Data Protection has been considered when developing the Report Catalogue. This has included seeking to minimise data requested (e.g. excluding unnecessary fields from flow data, moving to direct assurance for PSR obligations). In addition, RECCo is completing a DPIA in respect of Performance Assurance data with input from the Code Manager. 

All data transfer will be via encrypted methods and data encrypted at rest. Detailed (e.g. MPxN) data will only be available to Code Manager Performance Assurance team members and the Party who submitted the data. Data will be subject to lifecycle management and retention, noting that for some industry processes data will be required to be retained for over a year to allow for end-to-end processes to be assessed.

Question 21: Are these requirements mandatory/what is the legal basis?

Answer: Provision of data for Performance Assurance is part of the REC Performance Assurance Schedule (section 10). This is being updated to make specific reference to the Report Catalogue, which represents the means by which the requirements for the data are captured.

Question 22: Will you provide an explanation as to what activity a data item is used to assess?

Answer: The Risk Register will detail all Retail Risks and Risk Drivers against which parties are being assessed. The Risk Drivers provide a breakdown of the specific activities/processes that are being assessed using the underlying data.

The Performance Assurance approach being adopted is fundamentally different from previous regimes. We are not requesting one individual report for each Retail Risk, but requesting a suite of reports to monitor performance of the retail arrangements.

Question 23: Is this version of the Report Catalogue final? / Is the Report catalogue subject to consultation?

Answer: The Report Catalogue is not subject to formal consultation and this is the final version of the Catalogue Prior to go-live.

However, based on industry feedback and discussion we have agreed to defer provision of new data items until January 2022 to provide additional time for parties to review and prepare their associated business processes.

Question 24: Is there a volume threshold by which a supply licence holder may not be required to submit data?

Answer: No, all parties are required to provide the applicable data, however note FAQ25 below. We will update the Report Catalogue guidance to allow for the circumstance where a supply licence holder has a very low number of customers and hence may need to submit ‘nil returns’ for most data items.

Question 25: When does a new party need to start to submit data – on qualification or once they become active?

Answer: Data will be required once a party becomes active – e.g. for a supply party starts to acquire customers. Prior to this the ‘nil return’ guidance should be followed.

Question 26: What is the enduring process for data submission?

Answer: Data will be uploaded via the REC Portal, and detailed guidance is available from the help pages and via the support desk if required.

At a high level each month a request for data provision will be notified to relevant party contacts. Files will be uploaded via dedicated pages on the portal using standard upload functionality. Additional capability for automated/API driven upload is expected to be released in future versions of the portal.

Following provision data will be subject to initial validation and queries raised with parties if required. Data will then be processed and utilised for Risk Assessment and other relevant reporting, with detailed deviations shared with Parties via the Portal.

Question 27: How can I raise additional questions / get support for further questions I have on the Report Catalogue?

Answer: Prior to go-live please contact

Following REC Go-Live please raise via your OAM or submit a helpdesk ticket on the Portal.

Question 28: Can you provide details of the format of the SMICoP Domestic Monitoring and Compliance Survey Report (report 1330)

Answer: This has now been updated in the Report Catalogue and a template provided here.

Question 29: Supplier theft file – unclear if this is in addition to the TRAS submission of if the REC will be using the same submission?

Answer: This replaces the TRAS submission, but uses the same format to minimise disruption.

Question 30: Is there any additional guidance available on the content/format of each required data item?

Answer: Details on the fields and, where applicable, allowable values for each report is included in the Report Catalogue Party version previously published. Note this has had a number of clarifications/amendments made as a result of the feedback from the industry webinar.

As noted in that document all data (where not a pre-existing report and hence already defined) should be provided in pipe or comma separated format.

Question 31: What data should be included in the 1440 submission? As a switch can be requested in one month but supply lost in another, it is unclear how in which month the loss should be reported.

Answer: The guidance within the Report Catalogue has been updated to ask for data to be provided only once the final bill has been issued. The date the switch was requested has also been added to the data template.

Question 32: Has consideration been made for the volume of reporting required from parties?

Answer: We are cognisant of the burden on parties which is why we have attempted to source much of the data centrally or use pre-existing reports. We would expect parties to have established efficient repeatable processes for the production of regular reports.

Question 33: How did the PAB arrive at the identified Retail Risks and how they have been prioritised?

Answer: A two stage process was undertaken by the Code Manager. Firstly a review of the REC was undertaken, relating key obligations to consumer risks. Separately, a top-down review was also completed, focussing on risks to consumer outcomes and then relating them back to the code. The results of the two approaches were combined and used to derive the complete set of Retail Risks. The Retail Risks were subject to both SME, PAB review and challenge prior to being voted on (by the PAB) to prioritise.

Question 34: Can you confirm which report catalogue items are applicable for domestic / non-domestic only parties? Similarly can you confirm which are only applicable for parties with customers on prepayment meters?

Answer: We have added two additional columns to the report catalogue showing which items are applicable only to domestic / non-domestic supplier parties and which are only applicable to prepayment meters.

Question 35: The prepayment flow data requests (items 600-650) contain a large number of fields, are all of these required?

Answer: We have included in the request a number of fields that are currently optional but are present in the data flow. In preparing the request we removed all personal data items included in the flow but not required but retained a number of other fields that, whilst not required currently for risk assessment, may become relevant in the future. To avoid future changes required by parties we have included these in the specification, however as noted these are currently optional and can be excluded if preferred.

Question 36: Is it known whether the existing PARMS reporting under Elexon governance will phase out or stop completely to be replaced under the REC PAB reporting catalogue?

Answer: We have been working closely with Elexon on the development of the REC PA regime to manage transition and any overlap.

They have confirmed that there is a BSC PAB paper being progressed that is proposing:

‘Switching off participant-reported PARMS Serials (excluding SP04). This Change Proposal will remove the requirement for Data Collectors (DCs) and Meter Operator Agents (MOAs) to submit the impacted PARMS Serials. This CP will go through the normal Change process, including consultation, with a view to implement in Feb 2022.

Elexon will be working with the BSC PAB and with industry to determine the appropriate next steps in terms of Supplier Charges.  BSC Modification P406 suspended Supplier Charge Serials SP08 and SP04 from the March 2020 Performance Assurance Reporting and Monitoring System (PARMS) reporting period as a consequence of Covd-19 restrictions. The decision to reinstate Supplier Charges will be made be made by the BSC Panel at a date yet to be determined.

Scroll to Top