moneysupermarket get it wrong

George_Bray

For almost a year I've bought my electricity from npower on their "Sign online 20" tariff. The charges are 9.75p and 13.50 per kwH after VAT. Next month, my costs are going to increase by 50%, if I use exactly the same amount of energy.

I input 1200KwH per annum into moneysupermarket.com and it correctly stated that my current costs are about £102 per year. Then, they made a huge mistake in rushing to send me an email which says my "estimated annual saving is 50.82"

Wrong! The best they actually came up with is that I will need to spend at least £50.82 MORE next year (being the npower Go Save tariff, as it happens).

I knew electricity had gone up by quite a bit but I'm shocked it's as much as 50% in one year.

madmum33

That email actually says you will be making a saving of MINUS 50.82 per year, which is not a saving at all, so no, they didn't get it wrong, you read it wrong.

uptomyeyeballs

madmum33 wrote: »

That email actually says you will be making a saving of MINUS 50.82 per year, which is not a saving at all, so no, they didn't get it wrong, you read it wrong.

Did he?

"Your estimated annual saving is 50.82"

"Out of the 41 quotes returned, we've listed the top 6 which could save you up to 50.82 on your energy bills"

kevin52

There is no tariff I have found that is better than SOL20. I will transfer to SOL24 when the current tariff ends on 30 December.

George_Bray

madmum33 wrote: »

That email actually says you will be making a saving of MINUS 50.82 per year, which is not a saving at all, so no, they didn't get it wrong, you read it wrong.

I still reckon it's misleading, for the most part.

At the bottom of the email, they correctly insert a minus sign, indicating a 'negative' saving. But above that, all the text suggests a positive saving. I suggest many people could be misled, as perhaps you were.

madmum33

The figure seems to be in red, and scroll down and you see all the figures are negative, I always read the whole email before making a decision. Yes, the initial statement is misleading, but that's not what you said, you said they had got it wrong which is a different matter entirely.

I apologise if I seemed abrupt, I was in a terrible mood yesterday due to EDF trying to up my DD by £22, something which I have now sorted out.

FLAPJACK

I too am on SOL20....and went onto the U Switch website to find a better deal for next year, all the predicted figures came in as MINUS figures, so there was not one company or tariff for next year that would be cheaper that SOL20.

I also wasn't expecting a 50% rise in my tariff for next year, and spent the day stewing about what a rip-off all these firms are.....then watched Newsnight with Paxman mauling the BG top dog .....Paxman did a fair job btw.

It came to light in the discussion that last year many utility firms were offering "loss leader" internet tariffs....in an effort to bulk up the customer base for the companies.....so it appears that not only did we fall for these tariffs..who wouldn't?? but also as we all know during the past 12 months the prices have been hiked, whereas we were protected by the fixed prices on the "loss leader" tariffs such as SOL20.

Now we are at the end of these tariffs, of course not only do we lose the discounting that was applied but also we incur the "real" price of the utility as it is today....thereby because of this double whammy.... yes our new tariffs for next year are 50% higher because we have lost the discount and incurred the increase in prices.

Of course the masterstroke that could be played before Dec 31st is that, who's to say that the cheapest tariff (it seems is SOL24) won't be withdrawn and replaced with a higher priced one?

The immediate thing I thought of when I found SOL24 was to sign up rightaway....even though the prices are higher than SOL20 (it's only for a month) however I spotted a clause in the SOL20 p/w that states if you cancel before the 12 months is up it will cost you £20!...so lets just hope that SOL24 is still around in January.

So the moral of the story is as always "Thay have you every whichway".

Scott_Byrom

Sorry to hear of the confusion our email has caused. It appears there is an issue with the minus sign not appearing which we will work to resolve ASAP.

For those querying why we even bother showing a minus saving, there are a few reasons:

1.) As an accredited member of the Consumer Focus 'Code of Confidence' we're required to show these figures.

2.) Some customers may want to switch away from their current supplier for other reasons than price and so we want to ensure they are clear on how much this will cost.

3.) If you are on a better deal than the market currently has to offer, it helps show you just how much better off you are.


Apologies once again.

If you have any feedback or suggestions on how to better present this information, please contact me directly (email below).

Kind regards,

Scott Byrom
Energy Channel Manager
MoneySupermarket.com
[EMAIL="scott.byrom@moneysupermarket.com"]scott.byrom@moneysupermarket.com[/EMAIL]

backfoot

Hi Scott,

Still crunching the numbers ?

Hope you are well and missing me....;)

MS still being naughty by the looks of it.

Best wishes mate.

George_Bray

Scott_Byrom wrote: »

Sorry to hear of the confusion our email has caused. It appears there is an issue with the minus sign not appearing which we will work to resolve ASAP....If you have any feedback or suggestions on how to better present this information, please contact me directly (email below).

Scott - Thank you for your input. Here are my suggestions. If I emailed them to you, other people would miss out! Perhaps you could consider writing something like:


Out of the 41 quotes returned, we're sorry we can't offer any savings.

We've listed the top 6 which could cost you from £50.82 more a year on your energy bills. We're sorry it's bad news on this occasion.

Then, instead of presenting the results as a word followed by a negative number, issue them in a form like:

SPEND £50.82 MORE

Whatever, you do, don't use the word 'Save' in detailed results for negative numbers. It looks daft.