Bulk LPG - Cheapest suppliers / supply route?

Thanks for getting back to us with your "findings". Most enlightening!

alictait wrote: »

Calor - 44.9ppl for 6 mths, guaranteed not to increase more than 3.5ppl in a 6mth period (may have been 3mth) & £100 credit.

The three/six month difference is important - and worth checking. If it's 3.5ppl / six months, that's not such a bad deal. You could be right in thinking it's every three months, though - I know Calor sneakily slipped that change in a while back (I've discussed it elsewhere on this thread). I'm not sure if they stuck with it, but 44.9ppl then 3.5ppl / three months is not a good deal.

alictait wrote: »

Shell (avanti) - 42.4 ppl for 6 mths, guaranteed not to increase more than 5ppl in a 6mth period ( I don't think they will deliver to me though)

Interesting. Until fairly recently, Shell were offering 3.5pl/six months, but they do have a history of messing about with that part of their contract (it was even as high as 10ppl/six months a couple of years back, if memory serves :eek:). I wonder when that changed? Is it a new thing that has come in over the past week, since UGI bought Shell LPG and re-branded as "Avanti"? I do hope not - because if it is that's not a good start :-(

alictait wrote: »

Jgas - 48ppl, spoke to the area manager, not particularly fussed about signing a contract, says most people stay due to the service and if you want to leave then you can leave. Also they say they are anticipating a price decrease as the cost of their gas has fallen but has only maintained the same price because of the value of £/$.

This is VERY interesting. I wonder how this will work without any contractual tie-in? It sounds almost too good to be true, but don't let that put you off - it's not the cheapest price, but it's a fair price and without a two-year tie-in, you won't get locked into anything horrid. The key things I would check with this are:

• Will they guarantee to advise you of any price increase prior to any delivery? Telling them you don't want it at that price is kind of difficult when they've already put it in your tank!
• Will they be doing standard top-ups, or will you always have to call first to arrange a delivery and current pricing?
• How is tank maintenance carried out, and what is the standing charge? (you need to check this with ALL suppliers anyway, as it can alter the sums a bit);
• If you want to terminate any "verbal" contract/agreement with them, what notice period do they require?
• As there is no formal agreement with them, are you free to turn to another supplier in-extremis, if, for any reason they are unable to deliver? (this varies between suppliers anyway, but given the recent hard winters we have had, it is something worth knowing in advance!);

That said, If I were in your shoes, I'd probably go with JGas, based on what you've said so far and provided the answers to the above questions were reasonable. Even if you do go with them I would suggest that you at least ask for sight of a contract - it sounds like they won't be fussed if you don't sign one, but it might just be worth signing anyway if it's a good contract (especially if it offers some concrete and reasonable protection against excessive price increases).

But the really tasty morsel here is that they say they are seeing a fall in the wholesale price. This is the first time I have heard any supplier admit to this!

For what it's worth, wholesale prices were running at about 23.5ppl last September, then peaked at around 37ppl in January this year. They have been a bit unstable, but are currently at about 31.5ppl (all figures converted from $/tonne using the prevailing exchange rate at the time). Given the instability over the past 12 months, I can understand why no supplier has yet felt confident enough to pass on any reduction (there is no rhyme or reason to the price fluctuations), but there is certainly no excuse whatsoever for the latest Flogas (excuse my language!) price hike. Whatever the OFT may say to the contrary, that price increase is just cynical profiteering.

alictait wrote: »

JBMR - called twice and waiting for a call back, they don't seem to have a place to close to me, however I shall discuss any options with them. I am north of the border with postcode ML8.

Would be interesting to hear what, if anything, they can offer!

alictait wrote: »

I think I have convinced myself that Jgas may be the best option.

Given everything you have said, that would be my inclination too - I would suggest that you just double check on the points I mentioned above, so that you don't get any nasty surprises further down the line

alictait wrote: »

HateLpg, I'd just like to thank you once more, you obviosly spent/ spend a considerable amount of time replying to myself and others. very much appreciated.

You're welcome. Thank you

There was an opposition debate in on Energy Prices in The House yesterday. There were some noteworthy comments on off-grid energy:


From Albert Owen (Ynys Môn, Labour):

...Indeed, we should go further. I would link off-grid issues to reform of the regulator, because the regulator should have responsibility for those who are off-grid as well as for those who are on-grid. The priority of the regulator, in its terms of reference, is to protect the consumer, yet those who are off-grid receive less protection, so I am asking for the equalisation of protection.

The Secretary of State will remember that I asked him about that when he appeared before the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and I asked the head of Ofgem, too. The head of Ofgem said, “That’s a matter for the Government, and the Secretary of State said, “It’s a matter for the regulator.” Well, I should like to invite both of them for afternoon tea and to sit them down in a room, because people off-grid are losing out considerably while the Secretary of State and the head of Ofgem have different opinions of their remit...

and

I am pleased to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that we are going to have a further inquiry into the retail market, in which we will examine off-grid energy.

From Guy Opperman (Hexham, Conservative):

...I will focus on the role of the Office of Fair Trading, which I believe has done good work. Its report of September this year on Boilerjuice was a success. The report published only yesterday on off-grid energy, about which I met the OFT at approximately 12 o’clock today, is well worth reading. It is a doughty read at 352 pages, and it would be a lie if I said that I had read every single page, but I am working my way through, and none of my copy will go for fuel at the end of the day.

The OFT’s investigation into off-grid energy is a market study. Those who analyse what the OFT does need to understand that a market study does not necessarily lead to a formal investigation. As a first point I invite the ministerial team to consider that, although clearly it is not fundamentally within their remit.

and

With respect, I would say that the answer is somewhere in between. There cannot be regulation without submissions being made and investigations taking place. It is incumbent upon us not just to get upset about how our constituents are being affected by heating oil prices but to make representations to organisations such as the OFT. We must also invite the Energy and Climate Change Committee to investigate off-grid energy, which I very much hope it will do.

and

I am most grateful, and I hope that as part of that inquiry the Committee will examine the weighty report that the OFT has provided, as well as specific submissions from individuals and organisations that, like the previous three speakers, can give specific examples of price fixing or the appearance of price fixing. That is in the context of DCC, the company that I am particularly concerned about and have to deal with, recording operating profits of approximately 19.9% on an ongoing basis. I find that figure hard to square with the one given by the managing director, who when questioned in The Sunday Times said that the operating profit was only 2%—but I have taken my figure from the published accounts.

From Therese Coffey (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative):

...I want to tackle something that came up in my exchanges with Albert Owen, who is no longer in his place. I know that he is an absolutely fantastic champion on behalf of those in fuel poverty—especially for off-gas-grid households. I am not suggesting that the energy companies should be encouraged to make excessive profits; I think we should be critical friends to them, but we do have to be friends to them because this country needs £100 billion to be spent on energy infrastructure over the next 10 years, and it is absolutely right that that will come partly from the profits that those companies will make. I understand that, in effect, consumers are the people who make the profits for the companies, but, like anything else, if it comes in tax, it still comes from consumers—from our constituents. Let us not kid ourselves that we do not ultimately have to pay, together, for the infrastructure that our country desperately needs.

I welcome the contributions that were made by my hon. Friend Guy Opperman, who also is no longer in his place. He, too, has been a doughty champion for off-gas-grid households. Earlier today, Pat Glass and I were at a briefing about the Office of Fair Trading report that I have here. It is quite a weighty document, but it is double-sided, so the OFT was trying to be friendly to the environment. Members should read the report because, although the press notice did not make it sound very exciting, when one digs into it, one finds quite a lot that will prove very useful...

and

In that case, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s original intervention. He makes a fair point. In discussions with the OFT we particularly focused on off-gas grid households and the terms and conditions that people sign up to unwittingly. Various regulations protect consumers from unfair trade contracts, but those can be complicated. There should be as few barriers to switching as possible. I hope the Government’s actions earlier in the week will lead to that in Northern Ireland, as well as in Suffolk.

The House has heard more today about off-gas grid than it has for a while, but it is fair to say that those who do not have access to mains gas have considerably higher costs than they would if they had access it. The percentage in fuel poverty is even worse. Andrew George referred to that in the context of Cornwall. According to the latest statistics that I saw, 23% of oil consumers are in fuel poverty, as opposed to 10% of those on mains gas and 13% of those on electricity. There are other heating sources, including liquefied petroleum gas.

Let me complete my comments on heating oil. The OFT study found that the market has been generally competitive. I know that came as rather a surprise to some Members, especially the statistic that 97% of households that are affected have access to four or more suppliers. The OFT said that it would share that information with us so that we can make it as widely known to our constituents as possible....

From Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat):

...The hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), among others, made telling references to off-grid energy and, in particular, to the LPG market.

We should not ignore a minority group, namely the rural poor, and in particular the fuel-poor in rural areas. We should bear in mind that 29% of households with oil-fired central heating are in fuel poverty. It is clear from the position in my constituency—it includes the Isles of Scilly, which means adding a further 20% to the LPG costs—that many people are struggling to pay

their fuel bills in rural as well as urban areas. The Office of Fair Trading report is of course welcome. It suggests that most customers now sign two-year exclusive contracts with their supplier. That is the maximum time allowed following the Competition Commission investigation. Under those contracts, the supplier usually retains ownership of the tank, which makes it hard to switch supplier if prices rise. The Government must keep an eye on that.

From Charles Hendry (Minister of State (Renewable Energy), Energy and Climate Change; Wealden, Conservative):

I will not give way, as I have several other points that I want to make, including some on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about off-grid consumers.

He said that he would like us to meet up and talk about the issues, and I would like him and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for St Ives, and others, to talk to me about how we should take this work forward. Important work has been done by the Office of Fair Trading, and we need to look at how to take that further. The issue that was raised about differential pricing and price on delivery has been addressed, and the OFT has said that it will continue to look at examples of market abuse.

I want to see what more we can do to develop the gas grid, because that would be of real benefit to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I also want to see what additional powers would need to be taken, and where. The OFT’s report suggests that the market is working in almost all parts of the country, but we need to be certain, as our constituents face very high bills over the coming months, that we are doing this in the most appropriate way...

And quite a lot more - far too much to copy here in it's entirety, but the full debate can be found here at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-10-19a.929.1

What I would suggest is that it points out at least two key allies in the fight against the outrageous practices of off-grid energy suppliers, Guy Opperman and Albert Owen, who clearly recognise that there are serious problems in this market (irrespective of what the OFT may claim to the contrary) and that action is sorely needed to protect the consumer.

alictait wrote: »

Ok, Here is what I Know so far.

Firstly BMR did indeed call me back yesterday afternoon. Stephen from BMR was very nice to speak to and I basically asked how the service would work.

I deal with the lothian machinery ring for my heating oil. I don't know how they work for lpg but for heating oil they get the prices from all the suppliers every morning then they sort out a delivery from the most suitable one for you (the cheapest one unless you need an urgent delivery).

Another (short and sweet this time) debate in parliament yesterday, with some new voices B]Julian Smith[/B] [SIZE=1](Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)[/SIZE], [B]Gordon Banks[/B] [SIZE=1](Ochil and South Perthshire, Labour)[/SIZE], [B]Russell Brown[/B] [SIZE=1](Dumfries and Galloway, Labour)[/SIZE being heard:

Off-grid Households
Energy and Climate Change

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-10-20a.1038.2

There do seem to be an increasing (although still small) number of MPs raising issues and over this matter in general and the OFT report in particular. Sadly, I fear that the majority of them are especially concerned (and knowledgeable) about oil, but then as we are in a comparative minority, perhaps that's not surprising.

All the more reason to shout LOUDER

alictait wrote: »

Jgas Area Sales manager was out this morning and they can't take on my tank. The guy was excellent and offered lots of advice. really peeved that I can't go with them as it doesn't meet the current regulations for where it is sited.

This is (sort of) addressed in sections 5.43 to 5.45 of the OFT report published this week (see here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/current/off-grid/). They didn't really reach any firm conclusions here, other than that, irrespective of how long an outgoing supplier may have been supplying an illegally-sited tank, or what the reasons for non-compliance may be. They do imply that you might be able to "negotiate" on this point, by gettign an outgoing supplier to offer an explanation of why they believe the tank is compliant, ultimately it is down to the customer, not the thank owner, to take any remedial work required:

...the HSE has advised customers to explore the reasons why an incumbent supplier considers the tank compliant and that these points could then be put to the new potential supplier.

The new potential supplier is then in a position to consider this information but is not bound by another supplier's opinion and can make their own judgements.

This is probably fair enough, if we are talking about recently erected structures, overhanging foliage etc, where the customer has done something they shouldn't have )or failed in garden maintenance etc). But personally, I think it is dead wrong when a supplier has knowingly taken on or been supplying a tank that has been "illegally" sited for many years and indeed may even have been illegally sited at the time of installation or when the supplier took on the supply contract.

I feel this provides a really strong incentive for an existing supplier to turn a blind-eye to siting issues and to keep supplying and just rack up the price, knowing his customer can't go elsewhere. Bear in mind also, that the suppliers always claim that part of the maintenance charge we all have to pay annually is for "visual inspection of the tank by the driver at time of delivery", so they really have no excuse for allowing any new structures or overhanging foliage that may render the tank siting non-compliant to remain un-challenged anyway!

I had much the same problem myself a while back. When my contract renewal came up, the rep from my existing supplier came round and (gleefully) asked me if I realised that my tank was illegally sited and therefore that no other supplier would take it on? He then "kindly" said (almost as if he was doing me a favour!) that as they were already supplying it, they were in a position to turn a blind-eye to the siting issues and went on to offer me a shiny new contract. At a vastly inflated price. Net result? Existing supplier was rapidly told to sling their hook and a shiny new underground tank installed by a shiny new supplier! No regrets (and I don't have to look at that hideous tank every day either )

I did ask the HSE for some information on this earlier this year, to clarify whether the siting regulations had changed significantly in recent times (which would give a reasonable explanation as to why this has suddenly become such a common issue). Basically, the regulations haven't changed (see my post at http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42205844&postcount=844 for the HSE response), so I guess that this is just becoming more of an issue as more people are now switching and more companies are becoming aware of (or compliant with) HSE regulations.

This is something that you might feel strongly enough about to make a complaint to the OFT, who are (according to Charles Hendry) looking for further examples and evidence of market abuse and anti-competitive behaviour (see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47869485&postcount=1099)

All this also begs an interesting point: Once it is drawn to the attention of a supplier that a tank no longer complies with the regulations, on what basis will they continue supply? And surely, they are legally leaving themselves wide-open to legal action if they do continue to supply a tank that has been identified as being illegally sited and something then goes wrong?