Cancellation Charges

factoryworker

i must declare that I've changed supllier 3 times this year; but here's the caveat; 1) i always chose suppliers/tarifs where there was no minimum supply period, fixed period or exit/canellation charges and 2) i accepted in doing so i was not on the cheapest unit prices, knowing on my usage (low) the switching incentives(cashback) were considerably higher than the tarif/unit prices savins possible

if you are going to play the game, you have to be aware of the consequences; you cannot pick the parts that are to you advantage and disregard/dispute the parts that aren't; you have to consider the whole package

personally it frustrates me that there are greater savings to be made by being more energy efficient in your home than changing tarif; if people spent the time they do on comparison sites, on looking at how they reduce energy, they would be better off. But this comes down to it is better to blame someone else (high prices, profiteering energy companys) than it is to accept that you have 8 60W candle bulbs on your beutiful candelabra and a ginormous American style fridge freezer, and pay for that lifestyle

Haarlem

The cost to a supplier of taking on a new customer is more than most customers will realise.

The chain of those involved in supplying you with electricity who have to change their records when taking on a customer is:-

Meter operator.
Data collector.
Data aggregator.
Distribution customer (MPAN records).
Supplier.

A few years ago (when I worked in the industry) the cost for the company I worked for was recognised as £380 for taking on a new customer. Admittedly this included advertising and payments to the comparison sites.

These cost are bourne by the supplier upfront, so you can't blame the suppliers for recovering some of the costs if you leave. Where these costs are not recovered in a particular tariff, all customers on that tariff bear a proportion.

Its all part of the competitive market

factoryworker

"at the standard August 2008 British Gas ..."

of the top of my head, standard would have been pre big rise in August, which means a £300 saving over a year against a £100 exit fee..........sounds like a deal; i'll buy you lunch at Claridges if you can get that pass as misselling/poor practices/unfair contract

robredz

Premier wrote: »

What legal principle?

Didn't you hear? The banks won the recent case in the Supreme Court.

They did under the one specific head, but the door was left open for challenge under a different section.

As for the futures market, you may as well bet on the horses, or play poker than rely on futures, all futures do is cause pain for the consumer, as each layer take their profit.

factoryworker

Haarlem wrote: »

The cost to a supplier of taking on a new customer is more than most customers will realise.
A few years ago (when I worked in the industry) the cost for the company I workrd for was recognised as £380 for taking on a new customer.

Give that poster a cocunut-spot on...........it does depend but i would consider the costs today to be around £150

Premier_2

robredz wrote: »

They did under the one specific head, but the door was left open for challenge under a different section.
...

They can challenge all they like. They lost the first challenge which they thought they would win.

Even MSE Martin is now saying in answer to the question regarding the possibilty of getting bank charges back:

"...the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing..."
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

There is currently no legal principle established to recover bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts.

Cardew

The discussion about bank charges is largely acedemic as even had they lost the case, it would have been on the grounds that the charges were excessive.

The issue here with Utility companies is are the exit fees excessive? and it seems they are not and can be fully justified.

I for one would love to know if the figure of £380 by Harleem or even £150 to recruit a customer is realistic.

Whilst everyone welcomed competition in the industry, the huge profits made by comparison networks as well as advertising, doorstop knockers together with large numbers of staff in the Utility companies have the effect of increasing our prices by a considerable margin.

It seems to me that there is an ideal opportunity for a government agency(energy Saving Trust, Consumer Focus, or even ofgem) to run a single authoriative comparison website. Just give FACTS - No inducements to switch, no subjective best service gradings,. It would save us customers £millions.

robredz

Premier wrote: »

They can challenge all they like. They lost the first challenge which they thought they would win.

Even MSE Martin is now saying in answer to the question regarding the possibilty of getting bank charges back:

"...the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing..."
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

There is currently no legal principle established to recover bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts.

There may be some legislation in future to limit the amount a bank can charge, I'm not holding my breath though, and all pigs are fed watered and ready to fly. This issue on utilities is something else, although if there is something in the T&C's small print about minimum contract, they are acting legally.

factoryworker

Cardew wrote: »

I for one would love to know if the figure of £380 by Harleem or even £150 to recruit a customer is realistic.

Whilst everyone welcomed competition in the industry, the huge profits made by comparison networks as well as advertising, doorstop knockers together with large numbers of staff in the Utility companies have the effect of increasing our prices by a considerable margin.

It seems to me that there is an ideal opportunity for a government agency(energy Saving Trust, Consumer Focus, or even ofgem) to run a single authoriative comparison website. Just give FACTS - No inducements to switch, no subjective best service gradings,. It would save us customers £millions.

Yes they are realistic; just consider half an hour to appoint meter operator, half an hour to appoint Data Collector, half an hour for Data Aggregator, half an hour for distribution company theres 2 hours at say £7 p.h = £14; add £110 cashback theres £124 before youve even received a penny from customer

The reality is that whilst competition has forced energy companies to become less bloated /inefficient (albeit not far or fast enough), the advent of switching, and particularly switching for cashback has increased churn, so whilst a company may have 2 mill accounts a year at anyone time taking 5000 people to deal with, if churn is considered there are probably 3 million accounts during the year all needing processing, hence increase in utility staff, and ultimately cost. There is a short sightedness on energy companies part here, but if they don't play the game they are accused of profiterring-they really cant win...

As for one regulator approved comparisn only; wow, talk about revolutionary! (but plain common sense); I would endorse this entirely - and do you know what- not only would it save consumers a fortune-it would save utility companies a fortune; less churn, less mistakes

Cardew

factoryworker wrote: »

As for one regulator approved comparisn only; wow, talk about revolutionary! (but plain common sense); I would endorse this entirely - and do you know what- not only would it save consumers a fortune-it would save utility companies a fortune; less churn, less mistakes

I have been going on about this on MSE for years. Not only 'approved' - but run by a Government agency.

It really would be so simple, so cheap to run, no skewing service recommendations toward those companies paying sites higher commission.

If it were run by the Energy Saving Trust they would have massive numbers of people visiting the website and could also see all the excellent advice on energy saving etc.

Martin I fear would not back the scheme as he(understandably) gets income from people going to comparison websites via this site.