How are rates set when there is no contract?

Cardew

Sam_W wrote: »

Thanks for the responses, they make interesting reading. I do not in general have a problem with the deemed contract, what does concern me is that the price you will pay during this time will vary according to the energy company that the previous occupier used. Given that it will often be impractical to get suppliers changed before moving in (we only found the house 2 weeks before we started the tenancy, the changeover took 6 weeks) it becomes very difficult to choose the cheapest supplier.
Given that you are at the mercy of the previous owners energy supplier, it seems to me that this is a case where the cost of gas and electricity should be regulated and standardised across all suppliers. I wouldn't expect the tariff to be especially cheap as direct debit etc. discounts can't be offered, but I would expect it to be reasonable.
I fully appreciate that the potential saving for myself would be very small, and in many ways this is more an issue of regulation and how it should be used to protect consumers as a group, rather than a practical cost saving measure for individual customers.

How could this be enforced?

The Government don't know when occupants move in/out of a house.

Even if the old occupants tell the Utility Company they are moving, they don't know when someone has moved in - the property could be unoccupied for years.

So how long should this 'regulated standard deemed tariff' be in force.

Would the incoming occupant have to sign a legal document and prove that he has just occupied the property to benefit from the said tariff.

Can you imagine the cost of legislation and cost to impliment such a scheme?

'Sledgehammer to crack a walnut' comes to mind

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

You gave no answer! You gave no solution.

The deemed contract is not imposed on anyone! If you don't want to be on a legally binding deemed contract - then don't use any gas and electricity from that company untill you have made alternative arrangements.

These days people move into a property with the gas and electricity all connected and ready to go - Isn't that better than any other alternative?

If you enter a deemed contract, you can leave it at any time you wish.

Like your previous contribution on this subject you have given no substanstive objections to the system or no alternative suggestions for a better system.

:rotfl:You are clearly either mistaken (or alternatively perhaps looking to start a fight for some reason?) as you in fact responded to me again last time and asked whether part of my (involving the use of a solicitor) was a serious one

I also commented that it is simply not true when you suggest that anyone can escape a deemed contract at will (eg those in financial dicculty could not do so due to the suppliers objection)

If I get the time I might even try & find the thread for you - I assure you it's here somewhere

undaunted

KimYeovil wrote: »

Other than some silly pedantic legal points-scoring what is your practical objection?

You do understand the prohibitive expense of the consequence of not having deemed tariffs? You do understand that if they did not exist the standard tariffs would be even more expensive, not cheaper?

Nonsense. There is no reason that a supplier cannot for a contract with the consumer or supply (with or without contract, as many other suppliers & industries do) on exactly the same terms should they so wish.

Please also see the problem I raise with Cardew above

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

How could this be enforced?

The Government don't know when occupants move in/out of a house.

Even if the old occupants tell the Utility Company they are moving, they don't know when someone has moved in - the property could be unoccupied for years.

So how long should this 'regulated standard deemed tariff' be in force.

Would the incoming occupant have to sign a legal document and prove that he has just occupied the property to benefit from the said tariff.

Can you imagine the cost of legislation and cost to impliment such a scheme?

'Sledgehammer to crack a walnut' comes to mind

The Government don't need to know (though actually in many cases it's Land Registry would probably have a fair idea), just the Energy suppliers.

I can see no reason that they cannot & should not be obliged to form a contract with the consumer within a reasonable timescale (eg within a month or 3 months if not immediately would be better than the present open ended system)

At present there are problems with "deemed contracts" and unregistered meters, back billing etc regularly popping up on this forum alone which would be resolved by the existance of a properly construed contract. These issues arise solely because of apathy, slovenly practices & attitudes including both amongst customers and the energy companies.

KimYeovil

Undaunted, you simply are not making any sense. You only seem to looking to use a loophole to engage in payment avoidance.

No customer is obliged to accept a deemed contract. If they so wish they can contact the supplier on the day they move in and move to the payment type/tariff of their choice with that supplier. They are under no obligation to move into that property in the first place - if they don't like the colour of the bathroom suite or they don't like the range of tariffs available from that energy supplier then they are entirely free to cough up for their own avocado bath or they can simply choose to not move in there in the first place.

Who do you think is going to pay for all the unpaid bills that will accrue with your systems? Mugs who pay their bills. And the price of tariffs will go up. Alternatively you have an army of busybodies who traipse around a database of unoccupied properties every couple of months peering through windows trying to guess whether or not someone has moved in. And that is totally bonkers. Costs of tariffs would double or triple. And how are the Flitters-finders General going to work out whether or not someone has moved in in the first place?

Here's a default alternative: assume that if you are competent enough to move out of your parents' basement to make it in the world on your own then you have the sense to cope with sorting out your bills. And if you don't bother then accept the consequences.

I do not for a minute disagree that standard tariffs should be altered and they should be the best price and all costs should be applied as a charge to that - ie, you are charged a fee for paying by cheque or cash, you are charged extra if you are more than 45 days clearing a bill., etc. But consumers do not like things that way round. They prefer 'discounts' not 'surcharges'. But that is a separate debate from deemed contracts.

SwanJon

undaunted wrote: »

I can see no reason that they cannot & should not be obliged to form a contract with the consumer within a reasonable timescale (eg within a month or 3 months if not immediately would be better than the present open ended system)

How would a supplier know that the house has changed hands?
How would they know the name of the person now responsible for the energy bills (that can quite often be different to the name on the land registry)?
Suppliers are totally reliant on someone telling them someone has moved in.
Your argument would have a lot more validity if you were arguing for the ability to form a contract on the day you move in, but there are other contracts involved, which is why it tends to take at least 4 weeks.
A different option would be a way of sliding the start date back those 4 weeks or so, but you'd need to get all the suppliers involved to negotiate, probably with Ofgem & Consumerfocus, and that won't be free either.

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

I also commented that it is simply not true when you suggest that anyone can escape a deemed contract at will (eg those in financial dicculty could not do so due to the suppliers objection)

I really don't think you read - or if you do, you don't understand!

Nobody is talking here about 'escaping' a deemed contract!

The point being made is there is no need to enter a deemed contract if they find it objectionable.

The deemed contract for most(all?) companies is at Standard tariff rates; which is the tariff which the majority of UK consumers use.

Can you not see how impractical your ideas are; and how impossible to impliment?

I can see no reason that they cannot & should not be obliged to form a contract with the consumer within a reasonable timescale

They do form a contract - immediately! - is that not a 'reasonable timeframe'?! It is called a 'deemed contract'!!

As said above the customer doesn't have to enter that contract!

What sort of contract did you have in mind? one where the prices of gas and electricity are negotiated?

undaunted

KimYeovil wrote: »

Undaunted, you simply are not making any sense. You only seem to looking to use a loophole to engage in payment avoidance.

I have never mentioned let alone advocated payment avoidance. I believe customers should pay for the energy they choose to use.

Your comments on basements etc are not serious though are they? Sometimes in life people hit situations they could not forsee, sometimes long after they leave the basement (just look at the banking crisis, subsequent recession, unemployment etc that hit many)

There are other industries, eg telephones which do not have "deemed contracts" (despite the act Cardew cites I do not agree that a contract can be deemed upon anyone due to a whole host of other UK & EU Consumer Protection & other legislation which says so) , objections to transfers due to debt (as some of you appear to support this system can you explain why a domestic customer should be subject to this objection and yet business customers in debt to their electricity supplier are not subject to exactly the same rules?)

undaunted

SwanJon wrote: »

How would a supplier know that the house has changed hands?
How would they know the name of the person now responsible for the energy bills (that can quite often be different to the name on the land registry)?
Suppliers are totally reliant on someone telling them someone has moved in.
Your argument would have a lot more validity if you were arguing for the ability to form a contract on the day you move in, but there are other contracts involved, which is why it tends to take at least 4 weeks.
A different option would be a way of sliding the start date back those 4 weeks or so, but you'd need to get all the suppliers involved to negotiate, probably with Ofgem & Consumerfocus, and that won't be free either.

Briefly, I suggested previously that there is a property with an energy supplier.

There is an owner or tennant (with a contract with that supplier who usually gives them a final read to avoid paying the next persons bill!)

There is usually an incoming owner or tennant & landlord etc

There is usally a notice period in any tennancy or some weeks for colicitors, local authority searches etc with sales.

I can therefore see no reason whatsoever that there should not be a point in the process when solicitor, CAB, Community Legal Advice Centre or whoever is involved could not raise with the incoming owner / tennant what they wish to do about energy.

At this point an express contract would be formed with all parties aware of and agreeing to the terms and thus avoiding later queries and disputes.

I can see that there may be occasions when something slips through the system and thus I would not have such an issue if there was a short initial period (as I suggest above) without (proper) contract (or a "deemed contract") before an express contract was to be formed (this is supposedly what Ofgem "expects" to happen though they do nothing if it does not) but some unscrupulous suppliers are running on this system for years & then combining the "deemed contract" and "right of objection" to shaft the vulnerable. I believe this is both legally and morally unacceptable and that there should be a legal obligation on the supplier to either form a contract accept that they supply without contract or disconnect supply unless the consumer chooses to form a contract with an alternative supplier.

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

I really don't think you read - or if you do, you don't understand!

Nobody is talking here about 'escaping' a deemed contract!

The point being made is there is no need to enter a deemed contract if they find it objectionable.

The deemed contract for most(all?) companies is at Standard tariff rates; which is the tariff which the majority of UK consumers use.

Can you not see how impractical your ideas are; and how impossible to impliment?




They do form a contract - immediately! - is that not a 'reasonable timeframe'?! It is called a 'deemed contract'!!

As said above the customer doesn't have to enter that contract!

What sort of contract did you have in mind? one where the prices of gas and electricity are negotiated?

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as am I. I can however assure you that I can read and have a "reasonable IQ". I merely disagree with you.

I am talking about "escaping" a deemed contract - that is precisely my issue with them!

I accept that many customers do not have to remain in (or even necessarily begin with a "deemed contract") but some do.

No I do not see that "my ideas" are impractical (many other industries do in fact have to use them!) and I do not therefore accept that my ideas are impossible to implement

To illustrate my point further, take for instance this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2594277

It sounds to me like the poster was probably subject to a deemed contract (as they seem to have no idea what kind of meter they have let alone the terms of contract). They have obviously contributed to the problem themselves but so has the supplier! (Why do some here seem to feel that the supplier should not also take some responsibility?)

A properly construed contract with identified parties and terms should not have allowed this situation to arise - to their mutual benefit. ( I have no fixed opinion on the type of contract as long as the customer & supplier are identified, are provided with written details hence have the opportunity to be aware of - if they sign but do not read them then I would say tough, your own fault! - and agree to all terms and conditions which either party may later rely upon in the event of dispute)

Now that it has arisen however the electricity supplier which participated in creating the problem can simply object to this customer going elsewhere for more competitive terms should they request to do so. The supplier may also decide to attempt to impose a pre payment meter (until recently often uncompetitive, bringing further charges to have it removed in the future etc)

How can it be right that a vulnerable customer is allowed to run up a huge level of debt and then held to uncompetitive terms and the supplier escape all responsibility for allowing the problem to arise?

To those who say they would probably not pay if they were alllowed to transfer I say there is no reason to believe this. Fuel Direct may be another option of recovery and even if it were not why should energy companies not then follow the same civil debt collection process, court action, baliffs etc that anyone else does?