MSE News: Escape energy lock-ins as prices soar

gentlebloke

Let's cut to the chase. SLC23 is voluntary, like so many other codes the industry adhers to (back billing, erroneous transfers, etc.). Terms and conditions are legally contract terms and, as such, are enforceable in a court of law. If your contract states that the supplier can impose a fee to escape from a fixed contract, they can do just that. They may not, if you ask them nicely, but they can. It's somewhat of a grey area - a consumer could argue (in court) that such a term is unfair under the Unfair Contract Terms Act or Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, but as yet no-one has decided that it's worth the expense to do so. Be nice to your supplier and you'll probably be ok. Start demanding your (non-existent) 'rights' and who knows...

gentlebloke

Just ring our friends at Consumer Direct and they'll tell you about the 'Confidence Code'.....

backfoot

gentlebloke wrote: »

Let's cut to the chase. SLC23 is voluntary, like so many other codes the industry adhers to (back billing, erroneous transfers, etc.).

Why do think that the Standard License Conditions are voluntary?

backfoot

gentlebloke wrote: »

Just ring our friends at Consumer Direct and they'll tell you about the 'Confidence Code'.....

Ring them for what reason?

Anyone can download a copy from the CF website.

Consumerist

gentlebloke wrote: »

Let's cut to the chase. SLC23 is voluntary . . .

It is a condition of the energy suppliers' licence to supply energy to consumers. If an energy supplier fails to comply with their licence conditions they can have their licence revoked.

I don't see this as a voluntary code of practice and, like backfoot, I would be interested to hear why you think it is.

Consumerist

gentlebloke wrote: »

Just ring our friends at Consumer Direct and they'll tell you about the 'Confidence Code'.....

The Confidence Code regulates how accredited energy comparison sites calculate and present their comparisons and has nothing to do with the suppliers' Standard Licence Conditions.

What exactly, or even approximately, is the point you are trying to make?

gentlebloke

Consumerist wrote: »

The Confidence Code regulates how accredited energy comparison sites calculate and present their comparisons and has nothing to do with the suppliers' Standard Licence Conditions.

What exactly, or even approximately, is the point you are trying to make?

I was posting replies to two different posts and didn't actually say that there was any connection. No need to be insulting - perhaps sometimes people are too 'expert' for their own good

gentlebloke

Consumerist wrote: »

It is a condition of the energy suppliers' licence to supply energy to consumers. If an energy supplier fails to comply with their licence conditions they can have their licence revoked.

I don't see this as a voluntary code of practice and, like backfoot, I would be interested to hear why you think it is.

I appear to have incurred the wrath of the forums so-called 'experts'. It's a simple point - you, as a consumer, cannot insist that a supplier adhere to SLC23. The regulator may decide, at some time in the future, to impose a penalty for not doing so. Who knows? However, parties to a contract can insist that each other abide by the terms, with legal penalties for non-compliance. I have a life, so cannot spends hours on here debating abstract points - if you really want the minute details ask the people at Consumer Direct.

backfoot

gentlebloke wrote: »

I appear to have incurred the wrath of the forums so-called 'experts'. It's a simple point - you, as a consumer, cannot insist that a supplier adhere to SLC23. The regulator may decide, at some time in the future, to impose a penalty for not doing so. Who knows? However, parties to a contract can insist that each other abide by the terms, with legal penalties for non-compliance. I have a life, so cannot spends hours on here debating abstract points - if you really want the minute details ask the people at Consumer Direct.

Before you rush off .

First off you have raised the abstract point and then don't want to debate it.

Then a couple of posters have disagreed with your comment that a Standard License Condition is voluntary.It isn't.

OFGEM has issued guidance to clarify the grey area as you call it. By resurrecting the argument, it is hard to see what you are trying to acheive?

Consumer Direct have been silent on this issue to my knowledge, but happy to be proved wrong. When I wrote to both parties about this issue only OFGEM gave a substantive reply,which was the guidance Letter to Suppliers.

You obviously have some sort of inside knowledge on this matter so please let us know what it is and its relevance.

jalexa

gentlebloke wrote: »

I appear to have incurred the wrath of the forums so-called 'experts'. It's a simple point - you, as a consumer, cannot insist that a supplier adhere to SLC23

Why do you feel the need to resort to the "so-called expert" sleight?

On the other point I quote you are so so wrong. The consumer can "absolutely insist" that SLC23 is applied to the conduct of the contract. Perhaps you meant "enforcement" which is indeed something else, and at the customer's "absolute insistance", in the absence of supplier compliance at the conclusion of the Complaint process, something for the Energy Ombudsman to consider.

That you don't get that tells me you are no "expert" (with or without inside knowledge):D. Unlike (relatively speaking) some people here.