Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

Meeper

The usual suspects seem to be avoiding this thread since being asked a question.

How odd.

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

So, I shall throw in that I spend £1100 per month in Sainsbury's, and not include any other shops, etc that I might spend money in. £1100 per month is £13,200 per annum. With the 3% cashback that I get from doing my shopping there, that's a total annual credit of £396 off my bill. Now that £1,190 is down to £794, which is cheaper than your cheapest tariff of £944, so I could say that UW is cheaper than your cheapest offering by £150 per annum.

You don't get £396 "cashback" after spending £13200. You are forgetting the ongoing extra charges you have to pay for using the card.

Even if you did, you aren't benefiting from it if you buy uw energy that you could have bought elsewhere for a saving of £256.

Had you saved the £256 by buying the cheaper energy, you could also have used the £396 you say you get from your card to spend on what you wanted to.

You could have used it to reduce that £944 energy bill to just £548!

Yet you insist you are better off by letting uw take it, and thus "only" pay £794!

Anyone can see the difference - £794 or £548, which would you rather pay?

So you are a "busy fool" - you let uw take your cashback when you could be £246 better off buying energy elsewhere!

(This assumes you want to keep using the risky uw card and get only 3% "discount" at Sainsburys rather than the 5% people report getting off their shopping at Sainsburys by other means)

Meeper

Busy fool? Please explain. I don't do anything out of the ordinary at all, it's no more effort to be with UW than it is to be with any other energy provider.

So, I could have received the cheaper energy from elsewhere, £944, making a saving. By only having the gas & electricity, how exactly do I get the cashback to use elsewhere if I don't have any of the services?

How can I do it so that only £794 comes out of my bank account, other than with UW? That's the question you haven't answered.

Meeper

I have used many forums in many places over many years. About the worst bit of forum etiquette there is is to go back and edit posts that you have made after someone else has replied to them. That's just bad practice, because people read the latest posts, and respond to the latest posts. If you go back and change something you have written previously it makes subsequent replies look incoherent. You do this an awful lot, so have some manners and stop it.

Now, please illustrate how I could only pay £548 as you state above. Details please.

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

please illustrate how I could only pay £548 as you state above. Details please.

Thought it was plainly explained!

1) You say you pay uw £1190 for energy which you could get for £944 elsewhere.

2) You say you "reduce" your bill by your busy fool activity using the uw card and letting uw take your £396 cashback (though you don't actually get £396 as uw makes charges for using the card). You say this brings the expensive energy down to a less expensive £794.

3) But if you bought the cheapest energy elsewhere and used your sainbury discount off it you get down to £548 (ie £944 minus your £396).

(Were you not indoctrinated with the crazy way of "saving" uw style you could of course get it for even less!)

Quentin

Meeper wrote: »

I have used many forums in many places over many years. About the worst bit of forum etiquette there is is to go back and edit posts that you have made after someone else has replied to them. That's just bad practice, because people read the latest posts, and respond to the latest posts. If you go back and change something you have written previously it makes subsequent replies look incoherent. You do this an awful lot, so have some manners and stop it.

You suggest that my edit was done after reading your post in reply to mine and was a cynical attempt by me to make you look incoherent.

This is not true.

My edit was done before (or maybe simultaneously with) your reply (which I hadn't seen).

It wasn't an edit (ie. nothing was changed), and consisted only of the addition of the last paragraph. This has no effect whatsoever on the coherence of your reply.

You say you see editing posts as "the worst forum etiquette there is".

And this when you see the etiquette happily adopted by uw reps when they post here on behalf of uw (eg. reps posing as happy customers and not revealing their connection/coming here to promote uw to us, telling us how good it is and how happy they are with uw when elsewhere they actually are far from happy/personally abusing others who have different views/repeatedly handing out unfounded liar accusations/misleading us with false claims etc etc).

Cardew

Meeper wrote: »

About the worst bit of forum etiquette there is is to go back and edit posts that you have made after someone else has replied to them. That's just bad practice,

How about the bad practice of posting with multiple names and posing as a customer when a UW salesperson.

johnjames1

According to ofgem telecom plus has had their licence revoked http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Licensing/Work/Notices/RevocNotice/Documents1/Telecom%20Plus%20Plc%20Electrcicty%20Supply%20Revocation%20Notice.pdf any ideas what this means?

Cardew

johnjames1 wrote: »

According to ofgem telecom plus has had their licence revoked http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Licensing/Work/Notices/RevocNotice/Documents1/Telecom%20Plus%20Plc%20Electrcicty%20Supply%20Revocation%20Notice.pdf any ideas what this means?

Could it be a simple name change? e.g. Parent company Telecom Plus not selling electricity under their name, but 'delegating' to Utility Warehouse?

MillicentBystander

I'm sure if it was anything significant stock market rules dictate they would have to issue a statement. Just checked and can see no statement. I thought npower actually supplied the power to the end user and UW just administered it? No expert so no idea whether that actually requires an Ofgem licence?