MSE News: Call to reform pre-pay energy as 1.4 million cut off

SwanJon

undaunted wrote: »

:rotfl:Oh yes, silly me! They are apparently not wealthy companies though (Swanjon told me so!)

I'm not sure what your point here is?
Energy companies have been told to charge energy to reflect costs,but have also been told to reduce the cost of prepayment.
The prepayment system is more expensive to administer, and the extra costs are now borne by the rest of the customer base.

No matter how much you roll on the floor, it won't give the suppliers big piles of unused cash.

Andy_WSM

undaunted wrote: »

Given the economic climate & companies taking work overseas there may come a day when you are out of work. I hope someone else doesn't hold your views & leave you in the lurch then.

Well silly me has saved for a rainy day, so even if I did get laid off / out of work I STILL wouldn't get benefits due to having too much savings, because I've been foolish enough to work hard and look after myself. I am also silly enough to have a loss of earnings insurance. Go figure...

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

You don't think some of the comments in this thread negative or bigotted ?:(

Yes some posts are negative. However they are pearls of wisdom compared to the nonsense you post regularly.

You don't like 'deemed Contracts' - that is your prerogative; albeit you haven't given a rational explanation for that dislike.

However that really is not surprising as you haven't given a rational explanation about anything.

Deemed contracts were introduced for the benefit of customers and that is exactly what they achieve.

If you don't want to go on a deemed contract you make other arrangements.

If you enter a deemed contract you can end it immediately if you stay with the same company. Otherwise it takes about 6 weeks to switch.

You need to start at the beginning and define the problem with deemed contracts, before proposing your, frankly stupid and impractical, solutions to a problem that simply exists in your imagination.

Far from those on pre-payment meters getting a raw deal on prices, you also haven't seemed to grasp that pre-payment meter tariffs are subsidised by all other customers.

Even when pre-pay tariffs were much higher, they operated at a loss(formal evidence given to the Parliamentary Committee on Energy) The subsequent alignment to credit meter tariffs was a result of political pressure as those customers(generally) on lower incomes who used PPMs, should not be asked to pay the higher prices.(that incidentally is a stance with which I have no difficulty)

ariarnia

KimYeovil wrote: »

Most unemployed people do not use prepayment meters - particularly those who are poor - they can not afford the luxury of a prepayment tariff! They use direct debit online tariffs precisely because they have a low income. You are suggesting unfairness. You are suggesting the poor should be made poorer - you are saying that prepayment customers should not pay for the costs of using prepayment meters.

Can't comment on most or not, but when i was looking for flats that were around the LHA mark ALL of them had pre-pay meters. When I was looking at lodging most of them had gas central heating but didn't want DSS and flat shares had either.

undaunted

SwanJon wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point here is?
Energy companies have been told to charge energy to reflect costs,but have also been told to reduce the cost of prepayment.
The prepayment system is more expensive to administer, and the extra costs are now borne by the rest of the customer base.

No matter how much you roll on the floor, it won't give the suppliers big piles of unused cash.

I don't think you're really quite as daft as you sometimes appear to want to make out Swanjohn .

Unless I misread him / her the poster I responded to wasn't really suggesting pre payment was soo much more expensive but being sarcastic and I likewise!

The term "unused cash" is rather loose energy companies usually make big profits, no doubt about that. (thus they have big piles of cash until they give much of it to shareholders & Executives)

I suggest that energy companies were told to reduce pre payment costs because it was widely believed they were profiteering on them.

undaunted

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Well silly me has saved for a rainy day, so even if I did get laid off / out of work I STILL wouldn't get benefits due to having too much savings, because I've been foolish enough to work hard and look after myself. I am also silly enough to have a loss of earnings insurance. Go figure...

If you have done well for yourself, saved, have insurance etc all credit to you. None of those last forever however & even very successful people have been known to "come a cropper" at some point in their lives.

Some are also possibly of lesser ability or intelligence than you. That doesn't mean they should just be left to struggle for energy & basic necessities

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

Yes some posts are negative. However they are pearls of wisdom compared to the nonsense you post regularly.

I think (one of your suggestions of me) it must be you who doesn't read! (I'm not repeating myself again re reasons etc.) other than to say again we are all entitled to our opinion!

If they are such nonsense I wonder why they seem to bother you so much

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

II suggest that energy companies were told to reduce pre payment costs because it was widely believed they were profiteering on them.

That statement encapsulates your whole approach. In essence you haven’t a clue about the working of the Energy industry. However that doesn’t seem to deter you from making statements that are completely incorrect, and using that incorrect statement as the basis of your argument.

This is an extract from Hansard in Oct 2005.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071008/debtext/71008-0022.htm

A couple of quotes from the Minister:

As my hon. Friend emphasised, pre-payment tariffs are not low, but installing and maintaining pre-payment meters is itself not a cheap exercise. An average credit meter costs £10 or less, but a pre-payment meter costs between £50 and £80 and requires a complex payment and support infrastructure involving suppliers, meter owners and thousands of retail outlets. There will inevitably be a tendency to charge less to those customers who make fewer demands on a company’s systems compared with those who make more.
:
:
:
What sort of measures are we talking about? The model we hear most about involves forcing gas and electricity suppliers to reduce pre-payment tariffs to levels similar to those paid by direct debit customers. Much of that was the force of my colleague’s analysis.
The difficulty is that the cost of any reduction in pre-payment meter prices forced on suppliers by the Government or the regulator might not simply be borne with a smile by companies and their shareholders. Like other costs, it would probably be passed on to the customer, and therefore not only better-off customers, but the poorest customers who are not on pre-payment meters, would pay more. The worry is that the poor would be subsidised by some of the very poor, and so on.

There has never been any suggestion from informed sources(which excludes yourself) that Energy companies were profiteering from Pre-Payment meters. Indeed the bosses of all the ‘Big 6’ gave formal evidence to the Parliamentary All Party Committee on Energy to that effect; that was before the realignment of pre-pay tariffs to Standard tariffs.

The whole thrust of the argument was that, generally, pre-pay customers were less well off and higher tariffs impacted on those least able to afford higher costs. Which few would argue was not accurate.

However during 2008/9 the Energy Companies voluntarily – albeit under political pressure - agreed to reduce the differentials and set up a fund for Social Tariffs. If you recall the discussions(you won’t) it was made clear that if they didn’t volunteer, legislation would be introduced.

Fast forward to Feb 25 2010 in Parliament the minister stated:

Mr. Kidney: We have eradicated the differential between prepayment meters and the standard credit, so the hon. Gentleman has now moved on to the differential between the prepayment meter and direct debit. At present, the licence condition is that a cost differential is permissible to reflect simply the extra cost of providing the means of payment. According to Ofgem, a prepayment meter costs about £88 a year more to administer than a direct debit.

Now that £88 is just the extra costs of the Payment system – not all the other additional costs associated with Pre-Payment meters.

SwanJon

undaunted wrote: »

I don't think you're really quite as daft as you sometimes appear to want to make out Swanjohn .

No, I can spell someone's name when it's written in front of me.

undaunted wrote: »

The term "unused cash" is rather loose energy companies usually make big profits, no doubt about that. (thus they have big piles of cash until they give much of it to shareholders & Executives)

Sorry, should I have used 'wealthy'? I'm still waiting for your definition of 'big profits'.
If they give it all away, how have they still got it?

undaunted wrote: »

I suggest that energy companies were told to reduce pre payment costs because it was widely believed they were profiteering on them.

Was beaten to this one. You going to stop digging now?

undaunted

Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, I don't always believe everything that is said, either in Parliament or by Energy companies. Some of them have been known to lie and even fiddle their expenses you know! :money:

When I have a little more time I shall see whether I can dig out some actual figures on profits, opinions from "informed sources" etc. Truth usually outs in the end! . Until then, as I said everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if some of you appear to believe all opinions should match your own or be deemed idiotic, ill informed ........ blah blah

In the meantime my apologies for the carelessness in not looking at the spelling of your name Swanjon