We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
What would YOUR ideal energy bill look like
Options
Comments
-
grahamc2003 wrote: »The whole supplier business has grown into a massive complex monster designed purely to confuse customers. It's perverse really, and serves no one.I shudder to think how much of our bills goes on all the costs of tens of thousands of people constantly switching suppliers, with some being biullied into mit, soe switching purely for a cashback, some switching for a different tariff which has disappeared by the time the long drawn out complex switching process is complete, and some stuck on very high tariffs and penalised for being loyal.
So i'd say limit the number of tariffs each supplier may have, to say five (for each area). Then limit the number of discounts which can be applied.
A further quick simplification would be to bring back the standing daily charge, and get rid of tier 1 and 2 - it's fine saying 'it's simple and everyone should understand them' but the facts are that probably half the population have no idea about tier one and two (and turn off when you say the word 'tier'). For 99.9% of consumers, the tier system works in exactly the same way as the standing charge anyhow -the gainers are extermely low users like those with second homes - and i see no reason why they shouldn't pay the standing charge for the fixed costs of their supply whether or not they use anything.
Also, i'd like to see no penalty for early closure if a 'fixed term' and 'fixed disount from standard' rises due to a rise in the standard tariff.
RE: the bolded bit. That's not a fact, that's your opinion - unless of course you've conducted some big super survey across the entire population and come out with those figures.
The vast majority of people I've spoken to on the subject have easily understood what a two rate system is and how it works. It's also fairer than a daily standing charge. Ta.Let us create a better world for the next generation.
:beer:0 -
intermynan wrote: »It's also fairer than a daily standing charge. Ta.
That's not a fact, that's your opinion.0 -
Did I say it was a fact?Let us create a better world for the next generation.
:beer:0 -
grahamc2003 wrote: »the gainers are extermely low users like those with second homes - and i see no reason why they shouldn't pay the standing charge for the fixed costs of their supply whether or not they use anything
That's not a fact that's your opinion. 99.9%* of the 'gainers' are poor people who are too poor to use much power in the first place. Nice to see you think there is no such thing as society and we should all pay £25 per month standing charge regardless of consumption and wealth. I know, I know, this is Moneysavingexpert and is completely in favour of the free market and anti-society and anti-consumer. Might is right.
* Yes, an arbitary figure pulled out of mine.
(Your three other paragraphs are more reasonable, though.)0 -
That's not a fact that's your opinion. 99.9%* of the 'gainers' are poor people who are too poor to use much power in the first place. Nice to see you think there is no such thing as society and we should all pay £25 per month standing charge regardless of consumption and wealth. I know, I know, this is Moneysavingexpert and is completely in favour of the free market and anti-society and anti-consumer. Might is right.
* Yes, an arbitary figure pulled out of mine.
(Your three other paragraphs are more reasonable, though.)
Who mentioned £25 per month standing charge?
My tier one units equate to a standing charge of £9.50 pm.
I don't know how many people you think use less than £9.50s worth of electricity each month - but they would be the only one's to gain from a switch to an actual standing charge rather than the tier1/2 sham. I'd certainly stand by my estimate of 99.9% of users being unaffected by such a change (i.e. 99.9% use more than £9.50s worth per month i bet). I also stand by my view tha those who do use less than that are more likely to be relatively rich (2nd homes, flats etc) rather than poor - but I'm willing to be corrected if you can dig out the actual facts.
I'm all for benefits being paid to poorer members of society - but that doesn't include measures like tier 1 and 2 which I think is likely to benefit more rich people than poor, and also complicates bills for several mllion people for whom it makes absolutely no difference. in my opinion, obviously.
intermynan, yes you stated it as a fact. I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you decided to start on the pedantic criticism.0 -
You were the one who mentioned the word 'fact' in your post - not me. Hence YOU put your statement forward as a fact.
I did no such thing!Let us create a better world for the next generation.
:beer:0 -
grahamc2003 wrote: »I'd certainly stand by my estimate of 99.9% of users being unaffected by such a change (i.e. 99.9% use more than £9.50s worth per month i bet). I also stand by my view tha those who do use less than that are more likely to be relatively rich (2nd homes, flats etc) rather than poor - but I'm willing to be corrected if you can dig out the actual facts.
Mmmm 87.4263% of statistics are made up on the spot;)
Lots of people on MSE apparently switch off gas for the summer months. The pilot light alone uses a lot of gas. They can have an electric shower.
Some people only have gas for cooking and use little gas.
I have to declare an interest as I have a little used annex that rarely uses all the tier 1 units(electricity - never, gas only in winter) Whilst I would not plead poverty, the implication that 'the relatively rich' who own second homes can afford charges seems like means testing.
What is certain is that it doesn't matter if we have a daily standing charge or a tier system, those with lower consumption pay proportionately more for their gas/electricity.
The system in the USA has some merit. In my all-electric property I pay x cents for the first 1,000kWh per month(monthly billing - remote meter reading) and anything over that I pay an extra 20%per kWh.0 -
There is one thing I will concede to Graham: a daily standing charge may be easier to read. What is a nonsense is that it makes one tariff any easier to compare with another. What is the point of a bill that is 'easier' to read if you are unaware that you are paying more for your power?
If your useage is of the critical/chaotic magnitude such that different tariff structures matter then it is no easier to compare one daily standing charge tariff with another daily standing charge tariff than it is to compare a daily standing charge tariff with a two-tier tariff.
As to £9.50 per month electricity - well, it is a little disingenous to concentrate on electricity as no-one is arguing that this is less of an issue for electricty. Yes, most lowest consumption consumers will still use 80 to 110% tier 1 units and the issue is less important here. But a great number of households will certainly use less than 670 kWh of gas over one or two quarters (and many of them will use a great deal less).
As to £25 per month standing charge - well, that seems a fair and realistic enough absolute minimum. £15 for gas and £10 for electricity. That is, after all, what you are advocating, is it not? You did write "and i see no reason why they shouldn't pay the standing charge for the fixed costs of their supply whether or not they use anything" - you know perfectly well the current levels of standing charge are only a contribution to the 'standing' costs - most of the contribution to the infrastructure comes from kWh billing.
(Lots of happy customers come to this forum whenever nPower/OVO/First Utility bump their gas standing charges/tier 1 charges to £180 or £220 per year and share their delight at such clarity.)0 -
Just had my electricty bill from EDF.
Reading Period 25/2 to 27/4.
Bill date 16/5 (received 25/5).
Should they show a direct debit payment on the 1/5 on the Bill?
Why or why not?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards