MSE News: Escape energy lock-ins as prices soar

jalexa

Consumerist wrote: »

SLC 23.6 says :-I agree that it is not clear whether "by any means" refers to the becoming aware of the variation or to the notification that the customer wants to switch, but I would say that notice served by the new supplier to the current supplier would fulfil the requirement for the notice.

This time I think you have got the interpretation wrong. If you read 23.6(a) in conjuction with 23.6(b), it is (IMHO) clear that the "Domestic Customer" is required to "notify the licensee".

The "by any means" (IMHO) relates to the "Domestic Customer" finding out about the increase, not the "licensee" finding out the Domestic Customer is "rejecting the increase". And "by any means" could (IMHO) include the Domestic Customer hearing about the variation by reading MSE.

So my strong advice is to contact the current supplier first and as soon as possible. Speak about this issue with the objective that the current supplier "agrees" that there will be no termination charge in the circumstances (whether by right or by concession) and that that is noted in the customer notes.

Consumerist

jalexa wrote: »

This time I think you have got the interpretation wrong.
The "by any means" (IMHO) relates to the "Domestic Customer" finding out about the increase, not the "licensee" finding out the Domestic Customer is "rejecting the increase". And "by any means" could (IMHO) include the Domestic Customer hearing about the variation by reading MSE.

I don't think it's a question of the licensee "finding out" by any means; that doesn't, anyway, make any sense. If you read the sentence as a whole, IMO it means that the licensee can be notified by any means, including by the proposed new supplier. There is no reference in the licence conditions to a customer "rejecting" anything; only to a customer notifying the licensee (by any means), IMO.

In any event, I think BG would have a hard time telling milla that proper notice was not served, particularly if they are notified by phone on Monday, IMO

milla

I actually rang BG yesterday morning and the CS were very helpful . Filled out 'the form' and away we go . !

jalexa

Consumerist wrote: »

... There is no reference in the licence conditions to a customer "rejecting" anything;....

well that is very narrowly true but........

You need to read and understand that an "increase" (or significant disadvantage) is implicit in the actions as a result of clause 23.3...

In this case rejecting the "increase" is exactly what the Domestic Customer is doing. And has to do to claim (or argue) relief of the early termination fee by virtue of 24.3(c).

Which was where this "debate" started.

Consumerist

milla wrote: »

I actually rang BG yesterday morning and the CS were very helpful . Filled out 'the form' and away we go . !

In view of the uncertainty, that was clearly the best thing to do in the circumstances.

Glad you got it sorted.

Consumerist

jalexa wrote: »

You need to read and understand . . .

I have both read and understood - but have clearly interpreted differently.

Do you have some expertise which qualifies you to lecture on this subject?

jalexa

Consumerist wrote: »

I have .... clearly interpreted differently.

Do you have some expertise which qualifies you to lecture on this subject?

I am not "lecturing", I am posting in what MSE refers to as an "open forum".

I may (or may not) have "expertise" but that is not a pre-requisite to participate in "open debate".

And isn't the issue not that we have differing interpretations of the regulations but that Ofgem (apparently) doesn't have the same interpretation as the "working interpretation" of Scottish Power and British Gas, and that (apparently) Consumer Focus hasn't a clue (or hasn't said).

Thanks for the opportunity to make the "uber consumerist" points I really want to make.

Consumerist

jalexa wrote: »

I am not "lecturing", I am posting in what MSE refers to as an "open forum".
I may (or may not) have "expertise" but that is not a pre-requisite to participate in "open debate".

Sorry, it may have been expressions like "This time I think you have got the interpretation wrong." and "You need to read and understand . . .".

Disagreement is part of the strength of fora like MSE but assuming that you are always probably right is not really debate but lecture.

jalexa

Consumerist wrote: »

Disagreement is part of the strength of fora like MSE but assuming that you are always probably right is not really debate but lecture....

sounds like a ...no I won't go there


What I am doing is "floating" a particular "uber consumer" interpretation. Right or wrong isn't important. I don't intend that you are in the firing line, rather Ofgem and/or Consumer Focus.

Sadly, they appear less sensitive to "criticism", or perhaps don't have a clue what this "debate" is all about. And/or (particularly the "deafeningly silent" Consumer Focus), what they are for.

planetf1

I switched from EON to BG WebSaver 11 when my EON discount rate term came to an end.

With BG now raising prices I did a price comparison and it seems EON saveonline8 is the cheapest for me (about 11% cheaper than BG)

I'm considering notifying BG of my rejection of the new terms and notifying them of my switch, then arranging the switch to EON.

My account is paid by DD and everything is up to date

Anything else in particular I should be aware of? I've read about the transfer fee being waived so will of course raise this with BG.

I must admit it seems very complex and slow compared, for example, to mobile phone number portability... I think my switch TO british gas took around 8 weeks....