Utility accounts in credit - refusing to refund

jimexbox

Cardew wrote: »

Does it matter which way you look at it? The bottom line is you pay extra if don't pay by DD.

Im simply saying that if any energy supplier uses the non refund argument, with the justification that you get a percentage discount as a way offsetting criticism, it is a null and void argument. So yes, it does matter. Energy suppliers use the 'discount' as marketing tool, its not a genuine discount at all.

Like I said the more honest and genuine approach would be to lower everyone's unit cost, then charge non DD payers a processing fee. Smoke and mirrors again.

SwanJon

jimexbox wrote: »

Like I said the more honest and genuine approach would be to lower everyone's unit cost, then charge non DD payers a processing fee. Smoke and mirrors again.

Until a majority of customers are paying by DD surely it is fairer to show the price most people will pay, and then deduct discounts for customer behaviour that helps the company (DD, online etc).
I take it that you pay by DD?

jimexbox

SwanJon wrote: »

Until a majority of customers are paying by DD surely it is fairer to show the price most people will pay, and then deduct discounts for customer behaviour that helps the company (DD, online etc).
I take it that you pay by DD?

Yes, I do pay by DD to recieve my marketing led strategy 2% 'cut'.

If they lowered their unit price for everyone, then charged a processing fee for non DD payment, you would be showing the true price for DD payment at least. That's my point, its all about perception. At the moment the true price for DD payment is inflated by 2% to account for payment handling by non DD folk. They pay the full price as their payment method costs more to handle, fair enough. While DD payers recieve a 2% discount to bring their payment down to a level that it should of been in the first place.

Like I said its all about perception. BT are 'bad' for charging non DD customers, while energy suppliers are 'good' for giving DD customers an apparent discount. I merely pointed this out as I believe this 'discount' cannot be used (or threat of removal) as justification to hold on to DD payments.

Cardew

jimexbox wrote: »

Like I said its all about perception. BT are 'bad' for charging non DD customers, while energy suppliers are 'good' for giving DD customers an apparent discount.

Couldn't agree more with that statement.

However it is a fact that the public respond better to inducements(carrot) than penalties(stick).

Look how many people are attracted to a more expensive tariff by comparatively worthless Nectar points.

1carminestocky

Don't any of the Big 6 allow their punters to input their readings online each month then get billed for that exact usage the month after? That would certainly negate the argument about what happens with the credit accrued as there wouldn't actually be any.

SwanJon

jimexbox wrote: »

The DD discount is really a con, its a marketing strategy. It would be more honest if energy suppliers did a 'BT' and charged non DD customers a fixed fee commensurate with their processing costs and then lowered their energy prices slightly for everyone. But it suites to give an impression of a discount for paying via DD.

Agreed, there is a difference in cost to serve of the two methods, and this is shown as a discount. BG used to actually have a seperate tariff for DD, but customers responded better to seeing a discount on their statements, so they changed it.
Ultimately it makes no difference how they present it - you'll pay the same.
You want to present it as a surcharge for non-DD as it helps your argument against energy suppliers building up a credit.
Energy suppliers want to present it as a discount for DD as it makes them look nicer.
My point was that less than half of energy customers (AFAIK) pay by DD. Surely in this case the most common price should be presented as 'standard' and the surcharge/discount applied accordingly?

Vestra

1carminestocky wrote: »

Don't any of the Big 6 allow their punters to input their readings online each month then get billed for that exact usage the month after? That would certainly negate the argument about what happens with the credit accrued as there wouldn't actually be any.

I beleive the reason why utility companies don't do monthly billing is because they would have loads more calls from customer. Some customers would call every month about their bill, that's why the big 6 do 6 monthly billing so customer call as little as possible.

1carminestocky

Frankly, 6 monthly billing is a disgrace, pure and simple. It's got nothing to do with customer service and everything to do with saving money.

Vestra

1carminestocky wrote: »

Frankly, 6 monthly billing is a disgrace, pure and simple. It's got nothing to do with customer service and everything to do with saving money.

Yup mainly saving money on call centre staff wages.

neil_hiscox

Can you help me eon say the have over refunded me, the account is now closed but they are demanding the overpayment back with a debt collection company. Can they do this as this money is not a debt it is the overpayment they sent to me by cheque. As the account was closed i spent the money assuming it was my money as the account was closed, cheers Neil