We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How are rates set when there is no contract?
Comments
-
With you so farBriefly, 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
uh-huhThere is usally a notice period in any tennancy or some weeks for colicitors, local authority searches etc with sales.
Right so we now have: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.
tenant 1 who is due to leave the property (but may not),
tenant 2 who is due to take over the property,
supplier 3 who currently supplies tenant 1,
supplier 4 who tenant 2 would like,
solicitor 5 who is acting for tenant 1,
solicitor 6 who is acting for tenant 2,
Meter reader 7 who supplier 3 use,
meter reader 8 who supplier 4 use,
meter operator 9 who supplier 3 use,
meter operator 10 who supplier 4 use,
distributor 11 who both suppliers use (hurrah!)
All parties are aware and agreeing to the terms? what if the incoming tenant says no, I want to pay in magic beans? who pays for the gas/electricity used?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.
What, like the new tenant not telling the current supplierI can see that there may be occasions when something slips through the system
So, who pays for the gas/electricity used during this initial period? How short is short? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?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")...
So, who pays for the engineer to disconnect the meter, or the various follow up costs, me? you? the OAP down the road from their pension?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.
Nice idea, couldn't work.
Phone companies disconnect you when you move out because they can do it remotely, maybe once we have smart meters something similar.
Still wouldn't help if the customer doesn't inform the old supplier they have moved in.
PS
No one does. Suppliers cannot object on grounds of an outstanding balance unless the balance is over 28 days old. If you phone your supplier of choice on the day you move in, the previous supplier cannot stop you leaving.I accept that many customers do not have to remain in (or even necessarily begin with a "deemed contract") but some do.
Are these industries comparable? do they deliver their goods freely to the customer without the ability to identify the customer, charge in arrears, and have no remote control over the delivery device? Which ones?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
Another straw, sir?To illustrate my point further, take for instance this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2594277
That thread is nothing to do with a deemed contract, the OP states that they contacted the supplier.
Eh, so you would happily give your product away to a 'customer' who disagrees with the terms of reciveing their product, merely because they haven't put pen to paper?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)
You know only the current supplier can use Fuel Direct right? So that ties the customer to their current supplier. As to the civil collection process, you know that's not free right? Who pays for that, you? me? the old lady again?More irrelvancies to deemed contracts,probably through misunderstanding them
...
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?0 -
With you so far
uh-huh
Right so we now have:
tenant 1 who is due to leave the property (but may not),
tenant 2 who is due to take over the property,
supplier 3 who currently supplies tenant 1,
supplier 4 who tenant 2 would like,
solicitor 5 who is acting for tenant 1,
solicitor 6 who is acting for tenant 2,
Meter reader 7 who supplier 3 use,
meter reader 8 who supplier 4 use,
meter operator 9 who supplier 3 use,
meter operator 10 who supplier 4 use,
distributor 11 who both suppliers use (hurrah!)
All parties are aware and agreeing to the terms? what if the incoming tenant says no, I want to pay in magic beans? who pays for the gas/electricity used?
What, like the new tenant not telling the current supplier
So, who pays for the gas/electricity used during this initial period? How short is short? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?
So, who pays for the engineer to disconnect the meter, or the various follow up costs, me? you? the OAP down the road from their pension?
Nice idea, couldn't work.
Phone companies disconnect you when you move out because they can do it remotely, maybe once we have smart meters something similar.
Still wouldn't help if the customer doesn't inform the old supplier they have moved in.
PS
No one does. Suppliers cannot object on grounds of an outstanding balance unless the balance is over 28 days old. If you phone your supplier of choice on the day you move in, the previous supplier cannot stop you leaving.
Are these industries comparable? do they deliver their goods freely to the customer without the ability to identify the customer, charge in arrears, and have no remote control over the delivery device? Which ones?
Another straw, sir?
That thread is nothing to do with a deemed contract, the OP states that they contacted the supplier.
Eh, so you would happily give your product away to a 'customer' who disagrees with the terms of reciveing their product, merely because they haven't put pen to paper?
You know only the current supplier can use Fuel Direct right? So that ties the customer to their current supplier. As to the civil collection process, you know that's not free right? Who pays for that, you? me? the old lady again?
You seem to make it sound more complicated than it is for some reason?
Usually old tennant reads the meter & advises exisiting supplier they are leaving - often no meter reader or operator involved?
Some new tennants (eg first time home owners / tennants) may not even realise they would need to contact an energy company, know who is supplying the property (especially if the leaving occupier tells them they have informed the energy company etc) / might expect whoever is supplying to make contact with them etc
The reliance on new tennant contacting exisiting supplier could just as easily be switched around to existing supplier gets of their backside and identifies new occupant within a reasonable period, forms a proper and mutually acceptable contract with them or disconnects the supply (Npower for instance currently issue a "deemed contract letter" suggesting they may have to disconnect the supply in 2 weeks if they do not hear anything - though I don't believe they actually do so myself)
Incoming owner / tennant pays for the electricity they use without any express contract - but for a reasonable period only - thereafter supplier must obtain a contract with them, see that the customer has done so elsewhere or disconnect the supply, end of discussion if the consumer refuses to enter into a contract with someone (unlikely to happen!), "magic beans" obviously not acceptable to anyone.
A "reasonable period" would to my own mind be a month but I could probably live with a quarter. I can see no justification whatsoever for a year.
I accept what you say on the leaving on the day of moving in. However I do not accept that no one is forced to stay under a "deemed contract" or that such "contracts" and the objection to transfer are not being misused for years by certain suppliers.
I would suggest that the telephone industry is quite similar, as are many others - ie they supply a product or service to a consumer and then expect to be paid for it in return. I appreciate what you say about smart meters etc but the fact that the electricity industry does not currently operate suitable systems is not the consumers fault, energy companies are hardly poor after all are they?
Your comment on the other thread appears ill considered to me. Although the Consumer says they contacted a supplier they do not appear to have had the meter type let alone the terms & conditions outlined to them. Believe it or not you can ring some call centres & leave none the wiser!
I appreciate the current issue with Fuel Direct but can see no reason that this could not be adapted to suit the need rather than the DWP initial expectation.
The Civil collection process would ultimately be paid for by the debtor - assuming that the Courts find in favour of the supplier. If they do not then the energy supplier (& no doubt ultimately consumers) would obviously pay the costs just as they already pay for any errors now (eg back billing etc)!
At no point do I suggest that I would (or anyone else should) give their product away. I would not however be so lax as to provide my services for 5 years without payment (as in the linked thread) either!
0 -
More raving insanity! Power goes #pfft# because some database states that no-one is living there.
And it is idiotic to suggest that 'vulnerable' customers would be protected by allowing property agents to manage the transition. Do you not understand that the numbers of customers affected and the magnitude of excess bills would be massively greater than the trivial difference in standard tariffs and other tariffs? Property agents would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of your officially sanctioned trousering of hundreds of pounds of kick-backs. If a customer is so thick, sorry, I mean vulnerable so as to not handle and sort out the current deemed situation why the blazes do you think they will be any more savvy when it comes to recognising when the landlord and utility company have strung them up???0 -
Undaunted,
As a certain tennis player used to say "you cannot be serious"!!!
Deemed contracts were introduced specifically for the benefit of customers!
There wasn't much good for us customers when Maggie Thatcher 'sold off the family silver' but 'deemed contracts' at least worked to our advantage.
We don't have to accept a deemed contract. However if we do, we can now walk into a property with the gas and electricity connected - this wasn't the case before deemed contracts.
We only pay the same rates on a deemed contract as the majority of customers in UK i.e. the standard rates. The great majority who move into a property continue to pay the same tariff as the deemed tariff because they can't be bothered to change, don't want to be tied in with penalties on a cheaper tariff, don't want an internet account etc.
We can immediately switch to a cheaper tariff with the same company if we wish, or set up a move to a cheaper company that will take place in 6 weeks.
It is a great system, yet for some reason you have to find imaginary faults. To counter these imaginary faults you suggest a system that involves lawyers, letting agents, legislation etc that is as impractical as it is unnecessary.0 -
Sadly no, I'm actually making it sound simpler than it is.You seem to make it sound more complicated than it is for some reason?
Usually old tennant reads the meter & advises exisiting supplier they are leaving - often no meter reader or operator involved?
I thought it would be too much to mention data aggregatiors, transmission companies, PPMIPs, IGTs & IDNOs, central data companies (XOserve & ecoes) etc
Although the meter readers/meter operators won't visit the property on the day of the supplier change, new contracts will need to be agreed between them and the new supplier - even if it is the same meter reader/operator.
Some people believe in faeries. Your point?Some new tennants (eg first time home owners / tennants) may not even realise they would need to contact an energy company, know who is supplying the property (especially if the leaving occupier tells them they have informed the energy company etc) / might expect whoever is supplying to make contact with them etc
And how do you suggest this happens? There is no central database that tracks all homemoves in this country. Are you offering to pay for one and then persuade the populace it is a good idea?The reliance on new tennant contacting exisiting supplier could just as easily be switched around to existing supplier gets of their backside and identifies new occupant within a reasonable period
They only do this if they have been told about the homemove surely, or is Mystic Meg working for them now?, forms a proper and mutually acceptable contract with them or disconnects the supply (Npower for instance currently issue a "deemed contract letter" suggesting they may have to disconnect the supply in 2 weeks if they do not hear anything - though I don't believe they actually do so myself)
This seems to be your central point, but it misses fundamentals, not only of the industry, but laws and civil liberties in this country. How do you propose that a supplier disconnects a non-compliant non-customer?Incoming owner / tennant pays for the electricity they use without any express contract - but for a reasonable period only - thereafter supplier must obtain a contract with them, see that the customer has done so elsewhere or disconnect the supply, end of discussion if the consumer refuses to enter into a contract with someone (unlikely to happen!), "magic beans" obviously not acceptable to anyone.
"Hello Mr Undaunted, as you have not signed a bit of paper saying you want to pay us for your gas we are here to take your meter out, please let me in to your home, even though we have no right of entry without going to court to get a warrant which will cost our other customer money. I know you have been paying us, but as you havn't signed this bit of paper we need to take the meter out."
You are happy for customers to pay an existing supplier of a property once they move in, this sounds to me like a deemed contract. If it was called an opt out contract would that make you happier?A "reasonable period" would to my own mind be a month but I could probably live with a quarter. I can see no justification whatsoever for a year.
I also agree that it is unacceptable for a customer to leave it a year to tell a supplier who they are.
So you believe that suppliers are systematically abusing the objection system. I've heard rumours of the same thing, but in the opposite direction - suppliers are persuaded that a new tenant has moved in, and so the change cannot be objected to. I have never heard of what you are suggesting. Do you have any proof?I accept what you say on the leaving on the day of moving in. However I do not accept that no one is forced to stay under a "deemed contract" or that such "contracts" and the objection to transfer are not being misused for years by certain suppliers.
So the phone industry isn't the same because they can remote disconnect. Can you name a few of these many others? Phone lines have always gone through a central switchboard so have always been at the mercy of the supplier.I would suggest that the telephone industry is quite similar, as are many others - ie they supply a product or service to a consumer and then expect to be paid for it in return. I appreciate what you say about smart meters etc but the fact that the electricity industry does not currently operate suitable systems is not the consumers fault, energy companies are hardly poor after all are they?
When gas meters were first being installed, should those Victorian gas companies have developed a system for remote disconnection? Or the electricity suppliers in the early years of the 20th century?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hardly poor'. There are over 45 million domestic supply points in Britain. The concept of robust remote disconnection has barely surfaced in the last 10 years. Let's say that it appeared magically complete 10 years ago, and all suppliers instantly agreed to use the same system & model of meter, any issues with changing supplier were instantly resolved. From that point, working 24/7/365 9 meters would have needed to be changed every minute. The meters aren't free, nor is the maintenance of the radio network required to operate the remote disconnect. The installers definitely want to be paid. Who pays for this?
The government has decided we all need smart meters by 2010, and we are no where near the start of the scenario above - it's going to have to be paid for by someone and if you imagine the suppliers are sitting on a big slush fund you've joined the faery people.
And how would this change in your world? What would a signed bit of paper have done to make the meter do what the customer was expecting?Your comment on the other thread appears ill considered to me. Although the Consumer says they contacted a supplier they do not appear to have had the meter type let alone the terms & conditions outlined to them. Believe it or not you can ring some call centres & leave none the wiser!
What need? The one you create with your unorthodox ideas? There is currently no need.I appreciate the current issue with Fuel Direct but can see no reason that this could not be adapted to suit the need rather than the DWP initial expectation.
Added my own emphasis here. this is our argument - other customers will be liable for the lazy and the dodgers.The Civil collection process would ultimately be paid for by the debtor - assuming that the Courts find in favour of the supplier. If they do not then the energy supplier (& no doubt ultimately consumers) would obviously pay the costs just as they already pay for any errors now (eg back billing etc)!
As above, that is nothing to do with the type of contract the customer has. Your solution would not have prevented this.At no point do I suggest that I would (or anyone else should) give their product away. I would not however be so lax as to provide my services for 5 years without payment (as in the linked thread) either!0 -
Energy companies do in fact manage to make transfers regularly without too many problems don't they?, so it can be done then?
As to fairies & my point, the Energy company could of course contact the consumer, they merely find it easier not to have to!
Perhaps when I make as much money as the energy companies are doing I will set up such a system. Until then, once again occupier advises supplier they are leaving on x date. Energy co. makes contact with address & new occupier - by letter, phone, personal visit or carrier pigeon if they wish! - and forms a relationship & contract, sees them switch elsewhere or alterntively seeks disconnection on the basis that there is no contract & more specifically identifed & accountable party to pay the bill(s). - after all some seem to believe a ("deemed") contract is essential for there to be any supply at the moment so you can't have it both ways can you?
Laws & Civil liberties you say, convenient how you seem to wish to ignore those UK laws & EU Directives which say that you can't deem a contract upon anyone then!
I propose a supplier disconnects (if absolutely necessary, though it usually wouldn't be) in exactly the same way they would do so now, ie via visit & agreement or if necessary warrant!
Paying them? Deemed contract customers are more likely to be credit & quarterly billed customers aren't they? As I advocate a system where the contract would have been established within a quarter they wouldn't have been paying anyone!
You are also probably well aware that they do not need to take the meter out to disconnect supply (they can simply remove a fuse)
Being happy for customers to pay an existing supplier of a property for a short period does not make it essential for there to be a contract - believe it or not many things are bought and paid for "adhoc" daily & without there ever being a contract entered into for further supplies, any right to object to them suddenly going elsewhere etc.
You agree that it is unacceptable for a customer to leave it a year to tell a supplier who they are but seem to find it quite acceptable for the supplier to supply on a "deemed contract" for a year (or more) without getting off their backsides and finding out who occupies that property, whether they are likely to be able to pay, establishing a proper contract etc.
Do I have any proof? Yes, a little but that is not for a public forum at this stage.
Can I name any industries that supply a customer with a service & then want paying? Dont be silly now!
We are not in Victorian times now (otherwise we'd probably be using a lot more coal rather than over priced electric), times move on & so can the energy companies practices, just like the phones system, internet, electronics industry, cars etc etc all did!
Telephone customers are not of course at the mercy of the supplier in the same manner as the Energy industry. For example customers can all switch elsewhere, debt or no debt, they don't have deemed contracts etc.
Oh come now, you are surely being deliberatly obtuse? Name me an energy company that isn't making vast profits or 'hardly poor'.
As to your point on meters which is it - that it can't be done or that the Government decided it must be done "soon", even if energy companies don't want to hurry?
A contract would make all parties aware of each others identity for a start! (you did want that above didn't you?) Also, the specific terms they have each agreed to, could each be held to in the event of any dispute etc
As to what need? You suggest that any supplier with a debt still owed can't be paid by deduction from benefits. That is not necessarily true (Similar such systems are used to pay court fines, mortgages etc). The only reason there "is currently no need" to do so is because the poorer & most vulnerable customers are being held to ransom by the combination of deemed contracts, transfer objections & unscrupulous suppliers instead!
"this is our argument" - Our, not my I note! Just who is "our"?
Finally I must of course disagree with your glib comment that my "solution would not have prevented this" as the fact is under my suggestion either a contract would have been established and payment pursued OR the supply disconnected long before 5 years had passed - in fact after just one quarter had passed & minimal debt had arisen. It most certainly would therefore have prevented what happened in that thread occuring :T0 -
Yes, and it takes at least 4 weeksEnergy companies do in fact manage to make transfers regularly without too many problems don't they?, so it can be done then?
Earlier you gave an example of a supplier contacting a customer - in fact all supplier make attempts to contact their new customers by letter,expecting the customer to respond. What makes you think more customers would respond in your world.As to fairies & my point, the Energy company could of course contact the consumer, they merely find it easier not to have to!
So your system would only work if someone told the supplier a change had taken place?Perhaps when I make as much money as the energy companies are doing I will set up such a system. Until then, once again occupier advises supplier they are leaving on x date. Energy co. makes contact with address & new occupier - by letter, phone, personal visit or carrier pigeon if they wish! - and forms a relationship & contract, sees them switch elsewhere or alterntively seeks disconnection on the basis that there is no contract & more specifically identifed & accountable party to pay the bill(s). - after all some seem to believe a ("deemed") contract is essential for there to be any supply at the moment so you can't have it both ways can you?
Who is going to make this personal visit? Are they going to do it for free, or will Undaunted's millions cover it?
Disconnection again? See below.
Nor can you use something without expecting to pay for it. Would you fill up at a petrol station and then drive off without paying?Laws & Civil liberties you say, convenient how you seem to wish to ignore those UK laws & EU Directives which say that you can't deem a contract upon anyone then!
Of course, all those people who refuse to sign a contract would welcome engineers into their house to disconnect them. A warrant would be needed in the vast majority of cases.I propose a supplier disconnects (if absolutely necessary, though it usually wouldn't be) in exactly the same way they would do so now, ie via visit & agreement or if necessary warrant!
OK, so I have 3 months of using gas & electricity before I am in default of your 'not a deemed contract'. Then Undaunted Gas & Electricity can begin the process of trying to take the meter out. I'm not letting them in - I'm getting free energy. Couple more months for the warrant. Then, as UGE don't have a bill with my name on, I'm in the clear, off to my next house and the other customers of UGE will pay for it.Paying them? Deemed contract customers are more likely to be credit & quarterly billed customers aren't they? As I advocate a system where the contract would have been established within a quarter they wouldn't have been paying anyone!
Yup, the service head is next to the meter, so the same access is required to it as to the meter. It's not just a fuse you can pull out (have a go at yours) - you need to be qualified & registered to work on it. Your point?You are also probably well aware that they do not need to take the meter out to disconnect supply (they can simply remove a fuse)
And, when you have just moved into a new house, you are free to move to the supplier of your choice - even if you don't know who your current supplier is. You have just moved in, so have no outstanding balance for them to object about.Being happy for customers to pay an existing supplier of a property for a short period does not make it essential for there to be a contract - believe it or not many things are bought and paid for "adhoc" daily & without there ever being a contract entered into for further supplies, any right to object to them suddenly going elsewhere etc.
As above, how do you suggest a supplier finds out who is in a property for zero cost? Why would they bother if the unknown customer is paying all the bills?You agree that it is unacceptable for a customer to leave it a year to tell a supplier who they are but seem to find it quite acceptable for the supplier to supply on a "deemed contract" for a year (or more) without getting off their backsides and finding out who occupies that property, whether they are likely to be able to pay, establishing a proper contract etc.
Well, that puts me in my place I am converted. Do you plan to do anything with this evidence?Do I have any proof? Yes, a little but that is not for a public forum at this stage
So earlier when you said you could name 'many' comparable industries that wasn't true?Can I name any industries that supply a customer with a service & then want paying? Dont be silly now!
Wait a minute, my car can be remotely disconnected! No one told me.We are not in Victorian times now (otherwise we'd probably be using a lot more coal rather than over priced electric), times move on & so can the energy companies practices, just like the phones system, internet, electronics industry, cars etc etc all did!
Remote disconnect was built into the telephone industry from day 1, and the internet was built on this. 'Electronics, cars, etc etc' are not comparable.
As above, you are free to leave a deemed contract on day 1 by contacting your preferred supplier and the old supplier is unable to object. The telephone industry doesn't have deemed contracts because of remote disconnect.Telephone customers are not of course at the mercy of the supplier in the same manner as the Energy industry. For example customers can all switch elsewhere, debt or no debt, they don't have deemed contracts etc.
Profits are not the same as wealth.Oh come now, you are surely being deliberatly obtuse? Name me an energy company that isn't making vast profits or 'hardly poor'.
Could you define vast? Tens of pounds per customer? I believe Eon UK made a loss last year.
My point is that to exchange every meter in the country is prohibitive expensive. If any supplier had made the move on their own, their customers would have had to pay more for the privilege and so would have left for a cheaper supplier with non-smart meters. It would have happened slowly, but I wouldn't have expected 100% smart meters much before 2050.As to your point on meters which is it - that it can't be done or that the Government decided it must be done "soon", even if energy companies don't want to hurry?
The legislation is there with a very close delivery date, and we are all going to have to pay for it.
It is much easier for a customer to find out who their supplier is than for a supplier to find out who is the bill payer (who may be different to the occupier, and different again from the name on the lease/mortgage). The supplier issues details of the deemed contract to the customer, so everyone is aware of the details in the contract.A contract would make all parties aware of each others identity for a start! (you did want that above didn't you?) Also, the specific terms they have each agreed to, could each be held to in the event of any dispute etc
There are huge costs associated with such - the Undaunted Millions again?As to what need? You suggest that any supplier with a debt still owed can't be paid by deduction from benefits. That is not necessarily true (Similar such systems are used to pay court fines, mortgages etc).
Obviously you are biding your time with the proof of 'unscrupulous suppliers' - I won't hold my breath.The only reason there "is currently no need" to do so is because the poorer & most vulnerable customers are being held to ransom by the combination of deemed contracts, transfer objections & unscrupulous suppliers instead!
Why are 'poorer & most vulnerable customers' being held to ransom? They have the same right to change supplier when they move in as anyone else. Why would their name on a bit of paper change things?
Me and the others arguing for deemed contracts. Were you expecting a big reveal?"this is our argument" - Our, not my I note! Just who is "our"?
Both supplier & customer were under the impression that the meter was prepayment, this would have been reflected in UGE's non-deemed contract. What would have been different?Finally I must of course disagree with your glib comment that my "solution would not have prevented this" as the fact is under my suggestion either a contract would have been established and payment pursued OR the supply disconnected long before 5 years had passed - in fact after just one quarter had passed & minimal debt had arisen. It most certainly would therefore have prevented what happened in that thread occuring :T
You seem to dismiss the huge costs involved with every facet of your idea. The only time you touch on it, you mention energy suppliers being 'hardly poor' as if they are secretly hiding billions of pounds waiting for something to spend it on.0 -
More raving insanity! Power goes #pfft# because some database states that no-one is living there.
And it is idiotic to suggest that 'vulnerable' customers would be protected by allowing property agents to manage the transition. Do you not understand that the numbers of customers affected and the magnitude of excess bills would be massively greater than the trivial difference in standard tariffs and other tariffs? Property agents would be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of your officially sanctioned trousering of hundreds of pounds of kick-backs. If a customer is so thick, sorry, I mean vulnerable so as to not handle and sort out the current deemed situation why the blazes do you think they will be any more savvy when it comes to recognising when the landlord and utility company have strung them up???
No - the power goes off only if / because there is no contract with the supplier (something Ofgem & presumably all those of you who believe in "deemed contracts" seem to think is important!) and more importantly there is no identified party to pay for energy used (see the consequences of this in two recent threads 5 & 6 years with no bill, not vulnerable customers either! Juast who do you think is paying for that?)
Nowhere do I say that property agents should sort it out or have the opportunity to stitch anyone up. I said that the customer should sort it out (in some instances this may be the landlord), or if they prefer have their solicitor, CAB, Legal Advice Centre help them sort it out.
Some vulnerable customers may of course be of lower intelligence or "thick" as you so charmingly call it
0 -
in fact all supplier make attempts to contact their new customers by letter,expecting the customer to respond. What makes you think more customers would respond in your world.
Not true in my own personal experience, nor it would appear in a couple of threads here with people not receiving a bill for 5 or 6 years.
So your system would only work if someone told the supplier a change had taken place?
Nonsense! Customers leaving propertys tell energy suppliers so that they don't end up paying the incoming usually persons bill. Therafter energy company is aware something is happening & just needs to sort it out within an entire quarter - it dos not need a rocket scienctist!
Who is going to make this personal visit? Are they going to do it for free, or will Undaunted's millions cover it?
No the millions of the energy suppliers will do so initially, though as you are probably perfectly well aware such charges are usually passed on to the actual customer.
Disconnection again? See below.
Nor can you use something without expecting to pay for it. Would you fill up at a petrol station and then drive off without paying?
No, as I've said I expect people to pay for the energy the choose to use. I don't expect (and more importantly nor does Ofgem!) the energy company to hide behind a "deemed contract" for ever more
Of course, all those people who refuse to sign a contract would welcome engineers into their house to disconnect them. A warrant would be needed in the vast majority of cases.
Again, largely nonsense. Whilst a warrant may indeed be needed if it came to that the reality is few people are likely to choose to have their supply disconnected just for the sake of signing a contract (just as most take a pre payment meter rather than disconnection now!)
OK, so I have 3 months of using gas & electricity before I am in default of your 'not a deemed contract'. Then Undaunted Gas & Electricity can begin the process of trying to take the meter out. I'm not letting them in - I'm getting free energy. Couple more months for the warrant. Then, as UGE don't have a bill with my name on, I'm in the clear, off to my next house and the other customers of UGE will pay for it.
Largely as per the deemed contract now then! It doesn't however have to take a couple of months to get a warrant.
Yup, the service head is next to the meter, so the same access is required to it as to the meter. It's not just a fuse you can pull out (have a go at yours) - you need to be qualified & registered to work on it. Your point?
Simply that you suggested they take the whole meter out, made it sound onerous. They don't in fact have to do that, just remove a fuse & it takes just a few moments to do so.
And, when you have just moved into a new house, you are free to move to the supplier of your choice - even if you don't know who your current supplier is. You have just moved in, so have no outstanding balance for them to object about.
As above, how do you suggest a supplier finds out who is in a property for zero cost? Why would they bother if the unknown customer is paying all the bills?
They could simply ask the person who is leaving it (where a sale at least) who they believe to be coming in and when or ask the landlord who he is letting to perhaps!
Well, that puts me in my place I am converted. Do you plan to do anything with this evidence?
:rotfl:I said it wasn't for the forum but what on earth makes you think that I haven't already provided it to those that are in a position to do something with it?
So earlier when you said you could name 'many' comparable industries that wasn't true?
We will just have to agree to differ wont we. As I have said I consider that simply providing a service and expecting to be paid for it is quite comparable! Unlike you I do not accept that the energy companys inability to disconnect remotely makes them a special case or entitled to flout Consumer Protection Legislation. As you appear to differ in opinion and like "name games" however could you name me any other industry which has "deemed contracts", the right to block you buying the same service elsewhere or that provides a product or service for 5 or 6 years without making any effort to identify who is going to pay for it?
As above, you are free to leave a deemed contract on day 1 by contacting your preferred supplier and the old supplier is unable to object. The telephone industry doesn't have deemed contracts because of remote disconnect.
True - if you know that you are in it of course. How many customers on deemed contracts were unable to transfer supplier due to an objection in each of say the last 5 years?
Profits are not the same as wealth.
Could you define vast? Tens of pounds per customer? I believe Eon UK made a loss last year.
Semantics. You don't really want to waste our time arguing about whether energy companies traditionally make very significant profits do you? I'm pretty sure you will end up looking silly.
Obviously you are biding your time with the proof of 'unscrupulous suppliers' - I won't hold my breath.
Why are 'poorer & most vulnerable customers' being held to ransom? They have the same right to change supplier when they move in as anyone else. Why would their name on a bit of paper change things?
If, like me, you are just a consumer & another poster on the forum why would I need or want to prove anything to you? If you are able to answer the above question on deemed contracts & objections qwe may get a better idea as to whether you or I are proven right on "being held to ransom"! If they had signed a contract tieing them to the supplier they would be less entitled to complain about it in my opinion.
Me and the others arguing for deemed contracts. Were you expecting a big reveal?
No, merely wondering whether you have some hidden vested interest. Your terminology etc appears far more in depth than the average customer & poster.
Both supplier & customer were under the impression that the meter was prepayment, this would have been reflected in UGE's non-deemed contract. What would have been different?
You seem to dismiss the huge costs involved with every facet of your idea. The only time you touch on it, you mention energy suppliers being 'hardly poor' as if they are secretly hiding billions of pounds waiting for something to spend it on.
You're telling us that the supplier didn't know what type of meter (the same one they hold a database registration for!) was there. Unbelievable :rotfl:
Many of the ideas I suggest would not in my opinion cost as much as you seek to suggest. It isn't expensive to contact a property by phone or letter & as I said I don't believe many would refuse a contract / see themselves be disconnected. We would also of course see savings on those people who do currently manage to consume energy for 5 & 6 years & not pay for it!
I don't believe they are hiding anything - they make large profits & we all know it. Where we perhaps do differ is I suggest that they could use more than they do for such purposes rather than for dividends, reserves etc0 -
I said attempt.. 10% of British households move every year, so 4.5 million supply points.Not true in my own personal experience, nor it would appear in a couple of threads here with people not receiving a bill for 5 or 6 years.
I'm glad you agree that the supplier relies on someone to let them know - whether that is the old tenant, new tenant, landlord, agency etc.So your system would only work if someone told the supplier a change had taken place?
Nonsense! Customers leaving propertys tell energy suppliers so that they don't end up paying the incoming usually persons bill. Therafter energy company is aware something is happening & just needs to sort it out within an entire quarter - it dos not need a rocket scienctist!
When they are told, they do sort it out - this argument is irrelevant to your crusade on deemed contracts.
Ok, so you agree that these visits of yours will cost me.Who is going to make this personal visit? Are they going to do it for free, or will Undaunted's millions cover it?
No the millions of the energy suppliers will do so initially, though as you are probably perfectly well aware such charges are usually passed on to the actual customer.
I'm not sure what you mean by initially though - will the visitors not want paying after the first one?
You do realise that you still need a contract for a prepayment meter?Nor can you use something without expecting to pay for it. Would you fill up at a petrol station and then drive off without paying?
No, as I've said I expect people to pay for the energy the choose to use. I don't expect (and more importantly nor does Ofgem!) the energy company to hide behind a "deemed contract" for ever more.
Of course, all those people who refuse to sign a contract would welcome engineers into their house to disconnect them. A warrant would be needed in the vast majority of cases.
Again, largely nonsense. Whilst a warrant may indeed be needed if it came to that the reality is few people are likely to choose to have their supply disconnected just for the sake of signing a contract (just as most take a pre payment meter rather than disconnection now!)
I hate to break it to you, but it does currently take months to get a warrant - you can't just walk into court and say you'd like access to 1 High Street tomorrow. Do you plan to change the legal system too?OK, so I have 3 months of using gas & electricity before I am in default of your 'not a deemed contract'. Then Undaunted Gas & Electricity can begin the process of trying to take the meter out. I'm not letting them in - I'm getting free energy. Couple more months for the warrant. Then, as UGE don't have a bill with my name on, I'm in the clear, off to my next house and the other customers of UGE will pay for it.
Largely as per the deemed contract now then! It doesn't however have to take a couple of months to get a warrant.
The job of removing a meter is not onerous - it can be done in about 10 minutes. All the steps right up to removing the meter are onerous. Would you like another straw?Yup, the service head is next to the meter, so the same access is required to it as to the meter. It's not just a fuse you can pull out (have a go at yours) - you need to be qualified & registered to work on it. Your point?
Simply that you suggested they take the whole meter out, made it sound onerous. They don't in fact have to do that, just remove a fuse & it takes just a few moments to do so.
And how would they get hold of these people? Once again they are relying on the customer (or agent) to let them know.As above, how do you suggest a supplier finds out who is in a property for zero cost? Why would they bother if the unknown customer is paying all the bills?
They could simply ask the person who is leaving it (where a sale at least) who they believe to be coming in and when or ask the landlord who he is letting to perhaps!
Honestly? Because I think it's nonsense.Well, that puts me in my place I am converted. Do you plan to do anything with this evidence?
I said it wasn't for the forum but what on earth makes you think that I haven't already provided it to those that are in a position to do something with it?
To be honest, I can't even count gas & electricity in the picture you paint. See next.So earlier when you said you could name 'many' comparable industries that wasn't true?
We will just have to agree to differ wont we. As I have said I consider that simply providing a service and expecting to be paid for it is quite comparable! Unlike you I do not accept that the energy companys inability to disconnect remotely makes them a special case or entitled to flout Consumer Protection Legislation. As you appear to differ in opinion and like "name games" however could you name me any other industry which has "deemed contracts", the right to block you buying the same service elsewhere or that provides a product or service for 5 or 6 years without making any effort to identify who is going to pay for it?
As I said later in the same post, you don't have to know who your supplier is to change to your preferred supplier. I would say that zero customers have been unable to transfer because of a deemed contract.As above, you are free to leave a deemed contract on day 1 by contacting your preferred supplier and the old supplier is unable to object. The telephone industry doesn't have deemed contracts because of remote disconnect.
True - if you know that you are in it of course. How many customers on deemed contracts were unable to transfer supplier due to an objection in each of say the last 5 years?
Really? Try me. First, search these forums for the argument you are about to put forward.Profits are not the same as wealth.
Could you define vast? Tens of pounds per customer? I believe Eon UK made a loss last year.
Semantics. You don't really want to waste our time arguing about whether energy companies traditionally make very significant profits do you? I'm pretty sure you will end up looking silly.
I am a consumer, and a poster on the forum (don't demean yourself, that's not 'just' what you are).Obviously you are biding your time with the proof of 'unscrupulous suppliers' - I won't hold my breath.
Why are 'poorer & most vulnerable customers' being held to ransom? They have the same right to change supplier when they move in as anyone else. Why would their name on a bit of paper change things?
If, like me, you are just a consumer & another poster on the forum why would I need or want to prove anything to you? If you are able to answer the above question on deemed contracts & objections qwe may get a better idea as to whether you or I are proven right on "being held to ransom"! If they had signed a contract tieing them to the supplier they would be less entitled to complain about it in my opinion.
The main reason I'm countering your babbling is that the deeded contract is not the issue. There are plenty of real reasons that customers can't change suppliers, and in some cases suppliers make mistakes, but they don't make mistakes because of deemed contracts.
Define vested interest? I work for British Gas, I don't own it or run it. If more people understood how the industry really works my life would be easier, so maybe I do have a vested interest in getting the real issues attention and not irrelevance fancies.Me and the others arguing for deemed contracts. Were you expecting a big reveal?
No, merely wondering whether you have some hidden vested interest. Your terminology etc appears far more in depth than the average customer & poster.
I've never hidden the fact that I work for British Gas, and if I'm dealing with a thread that involves them I try to mention it.
Suppliers don't own or run the databases (a bit unfair on the other suppliers if some of them did, eh?). New properties are being built all the time - not by suppliers. Houses are being split into flats, flats are being combined into houses. Houses are being knocked down, and even been given new streets and numbers without moving. Do you honestly expect no mistakes to happen?You're telling us that the supplier didn't know what type of meter (the same one they hold a database registration for!) was there. Unbelievable
I've only said what needs to be done, not given an idea of costs.Many of the ideas I suggest would not in my opinion cost as much as you seek to suggest. It isn't expensive to contact a property by phone or letter & as I said I don't believe many would refuse a contract / see themselves be disconnected. We would also of course see savings on those people who do currently manage to consume energy for 5 & 6 years & not pay for it!
How can you contact a property by phone without a phone number - new people (whose name you don't know) have just moved in.
I respect your belief in your fellow man, but we'd have to wait and see.
As above, your plan would not eradicate unbilled properties, so even these meagre savings are smaller than that - definitely not enough to visit hundreds/thousands of properties.
Define large profits. provide a link to back up your argument. It's been discussed on here whenever one of the FTSE 100 energy companies publishes their accounts (Centrica's interim ones coming soon) - have a look then come back.I don't believe they are hiding anything - they make large profits & we all know it. Where we perhaps do differ is I suggest that they could use more than they do for such purposes rather than for dividends, reserves etc[/COLOR][/I]0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards