Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • gettingtheresometime
    • By gettingtheresometime 21st Jan 17, 4:23 PM
    • 2,206Posts
    • 4,747Thanks
    gettingtheresometime
    Compulsory Smart Meters.
    • #1
    • 21st Jan 17, 4:23 PM
    Compulsory Smart Meters. 21st Jan 17 at 4:23 PM
    On behalf of mum!

    She came home to a letter, from Eon, saying she had to have a smart meter fitted.

    Des she have to?

    Also how big are they as this seems to be her biggest concern.

    Thanks
    Lloyds OD / Natwest OD / PO CC cleared thanks to the 1 debt v 100 day challenge
Page 7
    • lstar337
    • By lstar337 17th May 17, 9:29 AM
    • 3,069 Posts
    • 1,616 Thanks
    lstar337
    The BullSheet we are told is that the Standing Charge pays for premises equipment, not the damn National Grid!
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    Says who, you? National grid charge a fee for the upkeep of the network and that gets passed on to us as the standing charge.

    These are commercial companies making billions
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    Source please?

    Ebico just screw you in the rate so that is not an option.
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    As will all suppliers if the standing charge is abolished.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 17th May 17, 9:39 AM
    • 16,229 Posts
    • 10,402 Thanks
    molerat
    Rip Off Britain item today. The official mouthpieces are obviously well versed in talking !!!!!!!! and believing it !
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 10:21 AM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Rip Off Britain item today. The official mouthpieces are obviously well versed in talking !!!!!!!! and believing it !
    Originally posted by molerat
    They have special training so thay can excel at doing it. The problem in society is the lack of people capable of spotting it.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 17th May 17, 10:55 AM
    • 1,477 Posts
    • 881 Thanks
    DavidP24
    Says who, you? National grid charge a fee for the upkeep of the network and that gets passed on to us as the standing charge.
    Originally posted by lstar337
    Well I just did say, but so also says all the BS we were told before when we complained about the standing charge, it is all still out there along with the new PR story that it is paying for the national grid.

    Look we were told when this sheeet was privatised that it would be good because we would not have to pay for infrastructure, well that was a lie. Fact is they find a way to screw us and they screw us hard, some people like it, defend it even, I don't.

    Source please?
    Originally posted by lstar337
    Derrr their accounts!!

    As will all suppliers if the standing charge is abolished.
    Originally posted by lstar337
    NOT if they are regulated, levy on dividends, something like 55% should do it, 85% for those that take the P
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 12:31 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Look we were told when this sheeet was privatised that it would be good because we would not have to pay for infrastructure, well that was a lie. Fact is they find a way to screw us and they screw us hard, some people like it, defend it even, I don't.
    Originally posted by DavidP24
    I can see both sides of the argument here, the fact is there is an inventory of fixed assets the utilities have to maintain to deliver the service. Whether they are charged for by a standing charge or an increase in unit rate probably doesn't matter that much in the wider scheme of things, but for individual consumers it can make a big difference.

    The theory of the public not having to pay for infrastructure only means the public don't pay the up-front capital costs of the infrastructure, it still has to be paid for. Various governments have tried the same trick, PFI is just another example of shifting capital expenditure off the government's books at the expense of paying higher revenue costs. The same applies to the utilities - the public don't pay the capital cost of installing a new meters, we just pay the leasing costs. If the capital costs were met through public money then you can be sure the scrutiny of the smart meter scheme would be far greater.

    I also feel the public haven't got a very good deal, as the utilities generally have skimped on replacement and renewal knowing that the government one day will have to bail them out because it is politically unacceptable for the utilities to fail. Whether that is leakage of water from mains, poor broadband speeds, minimal generating capacity surplus, sewers overflowing into rivers. All these things you would expect the utilities to invest in as part of the business have been failures the taxpayer or consumer has paid to rectify. The failure has been ineffective regulation not ensuring the correct levels of investment.

    My gripe with standing charges is that they do not adequately encourage reduction in consumption. The energy companies abandoned standing charges post-privatisation, but facing the prospect of profits being hit by a reduction in consumption (through energy efficiency and high cost) they were very quick to reinstate standing charges when the government gave them a golden opportunity to do so.

    My own view is the old block tariff arrangement, where the standing charge was effectively paid through the first block rate, was the fairest way of charging for energy. Those who consumed the least were still encouraged to consume less. Those that consumed the most saw their costs reduce and level off at higher levels of consumption, so the 'penalty' for high consumption was not excessive.

    But unfortunately the government decided to meddle and abolish that system on the basis it was far too complicated for simple consumers to understand. If consumers are really so collectively stupid they cannot work out a block tariff bill then the obvious thing to do would have been to re-nationalise the energy companies and take away competition so consumers would not need to compare prices between suppliers... but the government is never going to do that, are they?
    Last edited by EachPenny; 17-05-2017 at 12:33 PM. Reason: Typo
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 17th May 17, 12:51 PM
    • 1,477 Posts
    • 881 Thanks
    DavidP24
    The truth of it is that it is GREED, the energy companies are forced to have larger and larger dividends year on year along with higher and higher share price.

    That is why we are being screwed by them.

    When they make profits with their gambling we do not see a reduction but when they make a bad risk decision they expect us to underwrite it.

    The market is dysfunctional, even the Conservatives say they are going to fix rates for people on Tariffs, of course they will screw us in return as they always do.

    The only way I see of stopping this is to levy their dividends so they can't pay shareholders without paying consumers, but it needs to be of the parent company too, British Gas pay out all their big money via Centrica.
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
    • lstar337
    • By lstar337 17th May 17, 12:53 PM
    • 3,069 Posts
    • 1,616 Thanks
    lstar337
    My gripe with standing charges is that they do not adequately encourage reduction in consumption. The energy companies abandoned standing charges post-privatisation, but facing the prospect of profits being hit by a reduction in consumption (through energy efficiency and high cost) they were very quick to reinstate standing charges when the government gave them a golden opportunity to do so.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    The point is variety. Tariffs with no or very low standing charge reward those with low consumption, tariffs with higher standing charge are easier on those that have a high consumption (this is not always their fault. When I lived in a flat with NSH, reducing consumption was very hard).

    Switchers benefit from a variety of different tariffs. Take away standing charge and the variety goes down and somebody loses out!

    My own view is the old block tariff arrangement, where the standing charge was effectively paid through the first block rate, was the fairest way of charging for energy. Those who consumed the least were still encouraged to consume less. Those that consumed the most saw their costs reduce and level off at higher levels of consumption, so the 'penalty' for high consumption was not excessive.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Block tariffs also added good variety into the tariff mix.

    But unfortunately the government decided to meddle and abolish that system on the basis it was far too complicated for simple consumers to understand.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Exactly! Reduction of choice. Something DavidP24 seems to be fighting for but I can't figure why?

    If he hates SC so much he can choose a no SC tariff, but the penalty will be higher unit costs. This is something we would all have to suffer if SC were abolished altogether.


    If consumers are really so collectively stupid they cannot work out a block tariff bill then the obvious thing to do would have been to re-nationalise the energy companies and take away competition so consumers would not need to compare prices between suppliers... but the government is never going to do that, are they?
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    I think one national supplier might shake things up a bit.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 17th May 17, 1:08 PM
    • 16,229 Posts
    • 10,402 Thanks
    molerat
    The energy companies abandoned standing charges post-privatisation,
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    AFAIAW the energy companies never abandoned standing charges but simply absorbed them into a higher first tier unit price which meant all but the absolute lowest consumption consumer still paid the standing charge.
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • slinga
    • By slinga 17th May 17, 1:17 PM
    • 1,001 Posts
    • 201 Thanks
    slinga
    Bloke from TOTO came around yesterday saying they'd fit a Smart meter for free etc etc.
    In the end I realised he was selling an alternative utility supplier and if you changed to TOTO they'd fit the Smart meter.

    But I've looked around the net and can't find any photos of the Smartmeters just one photo of the read out meter.

    My gas and elec meters are under the stairs well away from any phone line or elec sockets.

    I can't find any details of fitting requirements on line either.

    Is an elec socket required in close proximity? I know there is obviously an elec supply through the meter itself.

    And I think I understand that the meter readings are sent to the supplier directly from the meters through something like a phone signal and do not require access to a phone line.

    Have I missed all this being explained somewhere or isn't it readily avalable online???
    It's your money. Except if it's the governments.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 1:24 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    The point is variety. Tariffs with no or very low standing charge reward those with low consumption, tariffs with higher standing charge are easier on those that have a high consumption (this is not always their fault. When I lived in a flat with NSH, reducing consumption was very hard).
    Originally posted by lstar337
    Completely agree, that's why I said I can see both sides of the argument, and wouldn't want high consumers penalised because they have to have high consumption. For me the block tariff approach meant the best of both worlds for everybody.

    I think one national supplier might shake things up a bit.
    Originally posted by lstar337
    If my job was writing the Conservative party manifesto then rather than the pointless and counterproductive price cap I would have promised to introduce a national power company offering basic tariffs (as a safety net) in competition with the private sector. This would have been a far more popular initiative with some voters, whilst ensuring those that benefit from privatised competition can still do so. It would also have created a new nationally owned asset ready for privatisation in a few year's time... but that's another story
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • gsmlnx
    • By gsmlnx 17th May 17, 1:25 PM
    • 570 Posts
    • 448 Thanks
    gsmlnx
    My gripe with the standing charge is that it is used as a mechanism to play with the quoted per kWh price whilst still maintaining the energy suppliers profit margin. That is, it is not used for the infrastructure but to generate profit for the energy provider.
    Why should every single supplier quote me a different SC, in some cases per tariff offered, and where some of them can vary by several hundred percent?
    As we have energy regions, why not a fixed (by regulation) SC at that level and the funds are used for the infrastructure only? Then the suppliers can price the energy at the levels they need to make their business pay and we as consumers can look at the kWh values when comparing?
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 1:26 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    AFAIAW the energy companies never abandoned standing charges but simply absorbed them into a higher first tier unit price which meant all but the absolute lowest consumption consumer still paid the standing charge.
    Originally posted by molerat
    Yes, maybe it would have been more accurate to have added a 'separate' in that sentence.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 1:30 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Bloke from TOTO came around yesterday saying they'd fit a Smart meter for free etc
    Originally posted by slinga
    For reasons given elsewhere in this thread and forum... if possible you would be better off declining their offer and wait for Smets2 meters to be available. You have a choice, and need to consider whether there is any benefit to you personally of having a smart meter.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • slinga
    • By slinga 17th May 17, 4:12 PM
    • 1,001 Posts
    • 201 Thanks
    slinga
    For reasons given elsewhere in this thread and forum... if possible you would be better off declining their offer and wait for Smets2 meters to be available. You have a choice, and need to consider whether there is any benefit to you personally of having a smart meter.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Oh there is a benefit, for reasons I won't go into but where do I find the fitting requirements.
    It's your money. Except if it's the governments.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 17th May 17, 6:12 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 395 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Oh there is a benefit, for reasons I won't go into but where do I find the fitting requirements.
    Originally posted by slinga
    You don't need to know anything about the requirements, the energy company will sort everything out for you and you'll have a nice fully working smart meter without having to worry about a thing. Possibly.

    I think I might just have seen a flying pig, but it is raining too hard to see outside clearly.

    Slightly more seriously, if they can fit a meter they will worry about all the details. You don't have to provide a socket near the meter and it won't have any impact on your phone line. If they cannot fit a smart meter there is very little you can do about it. If that means not being able to user your supplier of choice then you may just have to accept it. From what I understand, you won't know whether a smart meter will work in your home until someone actually tries to fit one.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • slinga
    • By slinga 17th May 17, 9:35 PM
    • 1,001 Posts
    • 201 Thanks
    slinga
    From what I understand, you won't know whether a smart meter will work in your home until someone actually tries to fit one.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    So nobody on here who has had a Smart meter fitted and knows exactly what is required and how they exactly work.
    It's your money. Except if it's the governments.
    • mac.d
    • By mac.d 17th May 17, 10:16 PM
    • 398 Posts
    • 306 Thanks
    mac.d
    My gas and elec meters are under the stairs well away from any phone line or elec sockets.

    I can't find any details of fitting requirements on line either.

    Is an elec socket required in close proximity? I know there is obviously an elec supply through the meter itself.

    And I think I understand that the meter readings are sent to the supplier directly from the meters through something like a phone signal and do not require access to a phone line.
    Originally posted by slinga
    The meters don't need any electric sockets nor a phone line, and there is no standard 'fitting requirement' for smart meters. As long as you don't have a non-standard wiring/meter set-up, and they can get a mobile phone signal for the meter, they will install them.
    • slinga
    • By slinga 18th May 17, 8:27 AM
    • 1,001 Posts
    • 201 Thanks
    slinga
    The meters don't need any electric sockets nor a phone line, and there is no standard 'fitting requirement' for smart meters. As long as you don't have a non-standard wiring/meter set-up, and they can get a mobile phone signal for the meter, they will install them.
    Originally posted by mac.d
    Thanks.
    Any size limitations because it's very cramped under my stairs.
    It's your money. Except if it's the governments.
    • lstar337
    • By lstar337 18th May 17, 10:28 AM
    • 3,069 Posts
    • 1,616 Thanks
    lstar337
    If my job was writing the Conservative party manifesto then rather than the pointless and counterproductive price cap I would have promised to introduce a national power company offering basic tariffs (as a safety net) in competition with the private sector. This would have been a far more popular initiative with some voters, whilst ensuring those that benefit from privatised competition can still do so. It would also have created a new nationally owned asset ready for privatisation in a few year's time... but that's another story
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    It's in the Labour manifesto, so maybe you should switch side.
    • DavidP24
    • By DavidP24 18th May 17, 10:37 AM
    • 1,477 Posts
    • 881 Thanks
    DavidP24
    They could but only foolish are going to vote for the unelectable, whole election was called because it was a free lunch, virtually guaranteed to extend ConGov for 5 more years.
    Thanks, don't you just hate people with sigs !
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,505Posts Today

6,014Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin