Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

Meeper

So, HappyMJ, you say that my figures are wrong?

Yes Cardew, £2,482 is indeed what he paid, and yes, that's over part of a period when prices were much cheaper. So if he paid £2,482 and UW's CURRENT price is £2,125.56 at the higher rates, they must have been EVEN CHEAPER when the prices were lower earlier in the year! That's extra savings in that case. Thanks!

Cardew

Meeper wrote: »

UW's phone and broadband package "Max" costs £24.99 per month. The closest equivalent I can find with BT costs £28 + £10 per month line rental, on an 18-month contract. http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=25633

The £38 monthly you quoted is correct - although there is a pretty small discount(£8) for the first three months bringing the cost to £36.50.

However the UW £24.99 package hardly the 'closest equivalent' - so let me help you?

The BT package includes 'anytime calls' i.e. 24/7 calls to all geographic numbers - including 0870 and 0845.

UW charge £7.75 for the phone package and it doesn't include 0845 numbers.

Then there is the UW £1.50 monthly on line fee.

Is that the only UW monthly membership fee? How about connection charges for UW?

Let us also see what the BT package includes:

1. BT have freephone 24/7 technical helpline - UW a 0844 number and they only operate 'business hours'.

2. BT have a free second telephone line and phone. a paid extra with UW

3. The latest wireless router - a paid extra with UW

4. Full McAfee security suite(firewall/anti virus etc) This for my Desktop PC and the 3 laptops in the house. (I can't see what type of security package is with UW and for how many computers)

5. 200 free texts monthly, by phone or using the PC

6. Digital vault 5GB

7. Caller ID.

8. Voice mail.

9. I can have two further features from outbound call barring, call forwarding and anonymous call rejection.

7, 8, & 9 are paid for extras with UW

10. Unlimited Wi Fi access for myself and family at 3 million ‘hot spots’ in UK and 400,000 abroad.

Also as explained several times both in this thread, in other parts of MSE and other places on the web, BT have a retentions department that will always give a sizeable monthly discount at the end of any contract. For the above package, but with a 40GB allowance, I pay £27.70p. I just rang them and for the unlimited(they would change me today) it would cost £32.20.

The '£25 UW' package would cost well over £40 to compare to BT and still not have anything like the facilities of the BT package.

So how can you possibly say that UW is a better package than BT - - and BT are not even the cheapest on the market.

So UW gas and electricity is extremely expensive - UW's phone/Broadband doesnt even compete with BT on price and value.

P.S.
I am aware that if you take other services with UW you can reduce the cost of the £7.75 phone package - but why would you pay potentially hundreds of pounds more for gas and electricity to save that sum?

MillicentBystander

Cardew wrote: »

The £38 monthly you quoted is correct - although there is a pretty small discount(£8) for the first three months bringing the cost to £36.50.

However the UW £24.99 package hardly the 'closest equivalent' - so let me help you?

The BT package includes 'anytime calls' i.e. 24/7 calls to all geographic numbers - including 0870 and 0845.

UW charge £7.75 for the phone package and it doesn't include 0845 numbers.

Then there is the UW £1.50 monthly on line fee.

Is that the only UW monthly membership fee? How about connection charges for UW?

Let us also see what the BT package includes:

1. BT have freephone 24/7 technical helpline - UW a 0844 number and they only operate 'business hours'.

2. BT have a free second telephone line and phone. a paid extra with UW

3. The latest wireless router - a paid extra with UW

4. Full McAfee security suite(firewall/anti virus etc) This for my Desktop PC and the 3 laptops in the house. (I can't see what type of security package is with UW and for how many computers)

5. 200 free texts monthly, by phone or using the PC

6. Digital vault 5GB

7. Caller ID.

8. Voice mail.

9. I can have two further features from outbound call barring, call forwarding and anonymous call rejection.

7, 8, & 9 are paid for extras with UW

10. Unlimited Wi Fi access for myself and family at 3 million ‘hot spots’ in UK and 400,000 abroad.

Also as explained several times both in this thread, in other parts of MSE and other places on the web, BT have a retentions department that will always give a sizeable monthly discount at the end of any contract. For the above package, but with a 40GB allowance, I pay £27.70p. I just rang them and for the unlimited(they would change me today) it would cost £32.20.

The '£25 UW' package would cost well over £40 to compare to BT and still not have anything like the facilities of the BT package.

So how can you possibly say that UW is a better package than BT - - and BT are not even the cheapest on the market.

So UW gas and electricity is extremely expensive - UW's phone/Broadband doesnt even compete with BT on price and value.

P.S.
I am aware that if you take other services with UW you can reduce the cost of the £7.75 phone package - but why would you pay potentially hundreds of pounds more for gas and electricity to save that sum?

You see, yet again, you are comparing a deal that anybody can take up now (UW) with a deal that you've had to:

1. Pay BT the full (crazy) price for, for for a minimum of 18 months.

2. ring up and threaten to cancel after this 18 months is up.

3. pay BT £120 upfront.

4. commit for ANOTHER 12 months.

All to pay almost £12/mth more than I pay for my UW phone/BBdeal INCLUDING a mobile SIM that gives me 500 mobile/land line minutes and u/l texts! This deal is available to all new customers! I know you get a bit carried away in here, Cardew, but where's the sense in all this?

Of course, you can shut me up now by simply linking to where I can get this BT package deal at the price you get it for. Can you do that, please?

Meeper

Cardew wrote: »

The £38 monthly you quoted is correct - although there is a pretty small discount(£8) for the first three months bringing the cost to £36.50.

Agreed, my mistake for not noting this.

However the UW £24.99 package hardly the 'closest equivalent' - so let me help you?

Well, it kinda is. The UW package is for phone and broadband. Can you point me to the BT package which is JUST phone and broadband without all the nonsense additions? Just a basic package with no download limit?

The BT package includes 'anytime calls' i.e. 24/7 calls to all geographic numbers - including 0870 and 0845.

Which you can get by taking 2 other UW services, one of which could be the mobile deals you never want to discuss[/quote]

UW charge £7.75 for the phone package and it doesn't include 0845 numbers.

Unless you take the additional services, obviously. And yes, agree with the 0845 numbers, a minor point.

Then there is the UW £1.50 monthly on line fee.

Indeed. Let's add that on, if you like, no problem.

Is that the only UW monthly membership fee? How about connection charges for UW?

Call connection charges, do you mean?

Let us also see what the BT package includes:

Okey Dokey.

1. BT have freephone 24/7 technical helpline - UW a 0844 number and they only operate 'business hours'.

Which is free to members on the Value membership level or included in the free calls package for 4-or-more-services customers. Also, UW's is all UK-based and their calls are answered in very smart order. Sure, it may be restrictive in terms of opening hours, but that's down to UW not having the resources of BT.

2. BT have a free second telephone line and phone. a paid extra with UW

Great. How many people use that? I was with BT for years but never used it.

3. The latest wireless router - a paid extra with UW

Yup, extra £1 per month. Still cheaper.

4. Full McAfee security suite(firewall/anti virus etc) This for my Desktop PC and the 3 laptops in the house. (I can't see what type of security package is with UW and for how many computers)

All good. Not much use to me, as I have Norton on an annual license which I have had for years. Another "benefit" that would be no use to me.

5. 200 free texts monthly, by phone or using the PC

I have unlimited texts as part of my market-leading UW mobile deal. Want to discuss that next?

6. Digital vault 5GB

No use to me at all.

7. Caller ID.

No use to me at all.

8. Voice mail.

I have voicemail, doesn't cost me anything.

9. I can have two further features from outbound call barring, call forwarding and anonymous call rejection.

None of these interest me.

7, 8, & 9 are paid for extras with UW

Because they are fancy add-ons that are put into the BT contract for marketing purposes to make it look as if you are getting a lot when it's a load of features that most people don't use.

10. Unlimited Wi Fi access for myself and family at 3 million ‘hot spots’ in UK and 400,000 abroad.

Was no use to me in all the years I was with BT.

Also as explained several times both in this thread, in other parts of MSE and other places on the web, BT have a retentions department that will always give a sizeable monthly discount at the end of any contract. For the above package, but with a 40GB allowance, I pay £27.70p. I just rang them and for the unlimited(they would change me today) it would cost £32.20.

I don't want to get "special deals". I want the cheapest deals they can do all the time, not just when they are scared of losing the business.

The '£25 UW' package would cost well over £40 to compare to BT and still not have anything like the facilities of the BT package.

Yup, but I've not come across anyone who has wanted all of those options. Ever.

So how can you possibly say that UW is a better package than BT - - and BT are not even the cheapest on the market.

Because BT's is full of features nobody uses.

So UW gas and electricity is extremely expensive - UW's phone/Broadband doesnt even compete with BT on price and value.

Not so.

P.S. I am aware that if you take other services with UW you can reduce the cost of the £7.75 phone package - but why would you pay potentially hundreds of pounds more for gas and electricity to save that sum?

Already shown in previous posts the savings that can be made on my customer's annual costs on energy.

Cardew

Meeper wrote: »

So, HappyMJ, you say that my figures are wrong?

Yes Cardew, £2,482 is indeed what he paid, and yes, that's over part of a period when prices were much cheaper. So if he paid £2,482 and UW's CURRENT price is £2,125.56 at the higher rates, they must have been EVEN CHEAPER when the prices were lower earlier in the year! That's extra savings in that case. Thanks!

Let me phrase this carefully.

You, or your customer, are mistaken.

For Scottish Power's Standard Tariff in the Manweb area at today's rates for 22,023 gas and 9,227 electricity according to Energyhelpline the cost will be £2169.

You(or he) maintain that he paid(past tense) £2,482 in the last 12 months.

Yet last August Scottish Power raised their prices by 19% for gas and 10% for electricity. So someone on Scottish Powers's most expensive Standard Tariff would have paid well under £2,000 in the last 12 months.

So your figure of £2,482 is just unsupportable. If that is what he paid it must have included arrears or the bills covered a greater period than 12 months.

So please comment on the above!

So let us see what action your customer should have taken if he was a money saver.

As said above, the Standard tariff price for Scottish Power for his consumption is £2,169.

The cheapest tariff is £1,883. According to Energyhelpline the cheapest UW tariff is £2,218( not £2125.26 have you forgotten VAT?)

So if he had gone for the cheapest tariff instead of UW he would have saved £335 or 17.8%

Comments on that please.

Meeper

Cardew wrote: »

Let me phrase this carefully.

You, or your customer, are mistaken.

You can be as careful as you like, but I'm afraid you are in no position to state whether I am mistaken or not. I read the information directly from the guy's SP bills, regardless of what any comparison site says. Perhaps your "special deal" for energy that nobody else can get is working in reverse for this guy. Maybe he's on an old and very expensive tariff. I neither know nor care, and neither did he.

For Scottish Power's Standard Tariff in the Manweb area at today's rates for 22,023 gas and 9,227 electricity according to Energyhelpline the cost will be £2169.

You(or he) maintain that he paid(past tense) £2,482 in the last 12 months.

Yup. We both maintain it, because it was right there in black & white.

Yet last August Scottish Power raised their prices by 19% for gas and 10% for electricity. So someone on Scottish Powers's most expensive Standard Tariff would have paid well under £2,000 in the last 12 months.

I know, isn't that strange. Yet, it is the case.

So your figure of £2,482 is just unsupportable. If that is what he paid it must have included arrears or the bills covered a greater period than 12 months.

It's not unsupportable, because I read it directly from the guy's bills.

So let us see what action your customer should have taken if he was a money saver.

So savings a few hundred a year isn't money saving?

As said above, the Standard tariff price for Scottish Power for his consumption is £2,169.

Means nothing. Doesn't have anything to do with what the guy was paying, according to his bills.

The cheapest tariff is £1,883. According to Energyhelpline the cheapest UW tariff is £2,218( not £2125.26 have you forgotten VAT?)

I mentioned that my figures above all were VAT exclusive. The SP ones as well as the UW ones.

So if he had gone for the cheapest tariff instead of UW he would have saved £335 or 17.8%

I do not dispute that he could have gotten the energy cheaper elsewhere. Once again, that is not in dispute, nor is it the point.

Comments on that please.

Enough comments yet? You have given me nothing to prove my figures are incorrect, other than insisting that I am "mistaken". Sorry, 'fraid not old chum.

HappyMJ

Meeper wrote: »

Quote:
So if he had gone for the cheapest tariff instead of UW he would have saved £335 or 17.8%

I do not dispute that he could have gotten the energy cheaper elsewhere. Once again, that is not in dispute, nor is it the point.

But based on your figure he was paying £2,482 and he could have paid £1,883 per year. I think the savings are the point. The whole point is to save as much as possible. Yes according to your figures he saved £357 based on what he paid last year by switching to UW but he could have saved £599 a year an extra £242 over the UW rates by switching to the cheapest tariff.

If the savings are not the point then what is our dispute about again?

Meeper

That's a different argument. The current argument is that UW have the highest prices, and so on. I am proving that they do not, and are perfectly competitive.

He could get cheaper on some online tariff, etc. But yes, he has saved money. And he could make additional savings in other areas as have been explained previously in the responses regarding telephony and bb.

Cardew

Meeper wrote: »

It's not unsupportable, because I read it directly from the guy's bills.


I do not dispute that he could have gotten the energy cheaper elsewhere. Once again, that is not in dispute, nor is it the point.

Enough comments yet? You have given me nothing to prove my figures are incorrect, other than insisting that I am "mistaken". Sorry, 'fraid not old chum.

Of course it is unsupportable! and of course I have given you figures to prove beyond doubt that your quoted figures are a mistake.

If the current price is £2,219, (which includes price increases of 19% for gas and 10% for electricity introduced in August), how can a 'financial adviser' not appreciate that he couldn't possibly have paid £2,482 in the preceding 12 months?

Can you not even contemplate you have made a mistake, e.g. the bills are incorrect, it included arrears, the bills cover a period greater than 12 months.

You simply cannot say 'I read it from the bills so it must be correct'. Even Keggs, or the multi-named one, would be embarrassed to come out with such a silly stance - they would at least try and obfuscate.

P.S.
Thank you for your admission that it is 'not in dispute' that the customer you helped to get a UW gas and electricity account could have been £335 pa better off if he ignored your advice.

Meeper

Cardew wrote: »

Of course it is unsupportable! and of course I have given you figures to prove beyond doubt that your quoted figures are a mistake.

If the current price is £2,219, (which includes price increases of 19% for gas and 10% for electricity introduced in August), how can a 'financial adviser' not appreciate that he couldn't possibly have paid £2,482 in the preceding 12 months?

Yet he DID pay £2,482 in the preceding 12 months. I read it from his bill directly, and there was no arrears. Was he on standard tariff or something else? I have no idea. Don't know, don't care, it DOESN'T MATTER what the tariff is, it matters what he was paying.

Can you not even contemplate you have made a mistake, e.g. the bills are incorrect, it included arrears, the bills cover a period greater than 12 months.

Yes, I can contemplate that I have made a mistake. However, the bills did not include arrears or cover a period greater than 12 months. Why can YOU not contemplate that when I say that the guy paid £2,482, that is ACTUALLY what he paid? He may have been on an old and unpublished tariff, I don't know, or care. He did say that he hadn't changed his supplier for 7-8 years, so this is a potential explanation I guess. Either way, I don't really care what his existing tariff was.

You simply cannot say 'I read it from the bills so it must be correct'. Even Keggs, or the multi-named one, would be embarrassed to come out with such a silly stance - they would at least try and obfuscate.

Is it your position therefore that the numbers on clients' official bills are LESS correct than your numbers plugged into a website? The guy paid what he paid. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

P.S.
Thank you for your admission that it is 'not in dispute' that the customer you helped to get a UW gas and electricity account could have been £335 pa better off if he ignored your advice.

Nope, because if he had ignored my advice he would have stayed where he was paying the same rates he was paying, no doubt. We have already seen in recent posts how SP could have offered it cheaper but did not. What makes you think he would have done anything to save money without me?

Really, this is getting silly. You ask for comment on the numbers, on specifics. I provide the specifics and the numbers. Then you say that I'm making it all up, I'm "mistaken", or go down the liar liar pants on fire route. If you ask for numbers, you can't complain when the numbers don't support your theory.

Sorry.