Massive bills,want to switch but trapped by debt on account

grahamc2003

emz, are you sure you are on the best tariff with your current supplier? I expect switching to better tariff with your curret supplier will be allowed. You don't have to worry too much about bing locked in for a year, since it looks like you will be anyhow.

While I'm sympathetic to people in your situation, there is an element of you not addressing the issue during the last year, when you were first notified of a problem.

Don't stay on the standard tariff if that's where you are now your previous tariff has expired, and try to use less/turn down your heating etc. You may be eligable for child tax credit/working tax credit which could help out a lot.

KimYeovil

grahamc2003 wrote: »

emz, are you sure you are on the best tariff with your current supplier? I expect switching to better tariff with your curret supplier will be allowed. You don't have to worry too much about bing locked in for a year, since it looks like you will be anyhow.

++ this. I did mean to include this advice in my first reply.

undaunted

Kim really, "Exploit a charity"? The poster commenting on this merely made a factual reference to the Trust & asked a question as to whether the original poster had considered applying for help. Isn't this what these charities were set up for?

As to moving out / "commit fraud", as I'm sure you're well aware if the poster chooses to move out & the new occupier chooses to switch supplier they may (or may not) be playing the system (just as energy companies do with the objection to transfer) but they would most certainly not have committed any fraud!


The first step would be to contact your supplier & see whether you can reach an affordable resolution (they do supposedly have an obligation to consider affordability) If you are genuinely unable to reach an agreement with them having done so however I suggest you try contacting Consumer Direct / asking them to refer you to Consumer Focus for help in negotaiating a payment arrangement.

Personally I think it immoral that suppliers bar (or Governements & Regulators are willing to allow) vulnerable customers from switching to the best deals on debt grounds and believe it may ultimately be found unlawful. As said above however, in the meantime, you may ultimately need to look at cutting costs however you can in the meantime.

KimYeovil

Have you read the OP's op? Have your read the OP's earlier thread (link in NeverInDebt's post #2)? What possible qualifying criterion could the OP have for claiming? Do you really think the innocents donating* to the charity would be happy if they knew such a baseless claimant was taking advantage of their benificence?

As to fraud I am clearly not referring to where the OP has moved out - I was only referring to where they transfer the account to (or rather get a new account set up by) a new CO-tenant. Whether that is legally a civil fraud or is just an idiomatic fraud it is a most clearly a reprehensible and fraudulent act.

* That is even if they are donating. I suspect a massive proportion of such funds' funds are levied from paying customers rather than charitable givers.

undaunted

There are no innocents donating to these charities - only the energy suppliers As to their motives for establishing these charities I strongly suspect they were not altruism!

Yes I have read the op's original post (in this thread), merely states the position & asks for help / suggestions as I read it.

No I hadn't read the other thread but have "dipped in" just now & the claim of serious financial difficulty in post one there would appear to be grounds for considering an application.

As to co tennants & fraud any energy company is free to test the law on it. They can't reasonably expect to play the law / system re transfer objections on one hand & then object to customers doing similarly if unwilling to take it to the courts for clarification.

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

Personally I think it immoral that suppliers bar (or Governements & Regulators are willing to allow) vulnerable customers from switching to the best deals on debt grounds and believe it may ultimately be found unlawful.

You don't appear to live in 'The real world'.

If companies allowed debtors to move, many would simply move from utility company to utility company leaving a trail of bad debts.

It is very easy to run up a debt of £1,000 or more, and in many cases there would be no chance of the company ever recovering that money.

No doubt the 'experts' in the Bankruptcy forum would offer good advice on how to arrange matters!!!

Edit
There was a thread several years ago about a lady who had run up a huge debt without the means and/or intention of paying it back. She 'moved out' of her property and arranged for her son to 'move in' and open an account. Obviously she remained living there and had other children in line to take over when first son's debt was high enough. The son was indignant when the ploy was discovered.

spiro

undaunted wrote: »

The first step would be to contact your supplier & see whether you can reach an affordable resolution (they do supposedly have an obligation to consider affordability) If you are genuinely unable to reach an agreement with them having done so however I suggest you try contacting Consumer Direct / asking them to refer you to Consumer Focus for help in negotaiating a payment arrangement.

They only have to consider affordability when setting the debt recovery level when installing a PPM. In terms of settings DDs that are supposed to ensure it covers useage to avoid customers getting behind in their bills and therefore getting into 'debt'.

This poster was in the same situation 15 months ago so obviously they are not managing to match useage against ability to pay so maybe the best solution would be for them to have a PPM regardless of them wanting one or not.

As I've posted before we are only one of about 3 countries in the world that use PPM. In the other 2 countries they only operate as PAYG (no debt allowed) and in every other country, no pay means no fuel.

undaunted

That is an opinion not necessarily a fact Cardew - as other industries seem to manage it without falling apart. The proper means of debt recovery for them is of course the County Court Judgement, balliffs etc rather than simply holding the poor & vulnerable to ransom over future supplies.

Again I am unconvinced this is anything more than your opinion Spiro (Fuel Direct for example must consider affordability & doesn't involve PPM). Could you please therefore post a link to whatever it is you claim to state that affordability relates only to PPM? (I will offfer you standard license conditions for electricity which suggests you are wrong! see page 83/ 84) http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/document_fetch.php?documentid=15484

As to the 15 months it is difficult to comment fully without knowing their circumstances. Your solution may merely leave them with no power rather than free of debt. As I've also posted before thankfully this country is generally more civilised than that!

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

That is an opinion not necessarily a fact Cardew -

Of course it is opinion!

How could it be a 'fact' when the companies don't allow people to switch with huge debts.

Do you not feel the reason why companies adopt that practice(of blocking switches) is that they have the same opinion?

Joyful

I don't know if it still the case but a few years ago in France if you moved out someone came and read your meter on the same day and you paid in full what you owed. Bet they never had as much debt as UK companies.
The Energy trusts are set up to help people but they usually ask how you got in the situation and what has changed so that if they pay the debt off the situation will not reoccur. It sounds like the op needs to address her consumption if she cannot pay for what she is using.

We often hear of companies increasing monthly payments and customers disagreeing. Here is a scenario that looks like they were correct.