MillicentBystander wrote: »
. . . who are basically signing up to falsely cheap tariffs where a %tage of our fuel is effectively paid for by the energy company's standard tariff punters!
Consumerist wrote: »
I must confess that I was quite surprised to learn that 75% of customers are on standard tariffs. No wonder there is so much fuel poverty. .
yippeekiay wrote: »
Spot on!!! :T
Hi everyone, from a long time lurker
In my case in regards to gas usage, I use even less than 'very low'.
Since moving my supplier in May I have used 2 units - yes, TWO. That equates to roughly 22 kwh in 7 months!!
Because of the price of gas I decided that I would only use it for cooking the odd thing here and there so changed my supplier to suit my usage. I use a fair amount of electricity and with respect/contrary to another post of yours regarding gas being cheaper than electricity for heating, this is far from being the case for myself which is why I ultimately chose a supplier with the cheapest electricity charges.
Just to show you the difference here's my own findings....
If I have my gas fire on for an hour it uses 0.6 units i.e. 7kwh (putting out far less than that in actual radiant heat!!!), each kwh currently costs me 7.78p + VAT for the first 4572kwh per year (not 3p to 4p as you have posted recently) which means around 57p an hour inclusive of vat. I actually use a small fan heater instead which only costs 12.5p for the same hour thus costing just over a fifth of the price and I find it more than sufficient to keep me warm on that setting - being it's lowest. Ok, having the gas fire on full for an hour would get a bit toastie even for my thin blood as it may be putting out an optimistic 3kw (it feels much less) of heat but even if I put it on low it would still cost 19p an hour and result in a lower overall room temperature. Therefore using electricity is a no brainer for me.
If I had to pay any standing charge it wouldn't be worth having gas at all as the cost per kwh would be HUGE, also I would then not be able to benefit from the dual fuel discounts I currently receive if they continue in the future.
I can't understand why a simple single charge for all units can't be sorted out for either/all fuels, then you simply pay for your usage which as far as I can see would be the fairest way all round. This system should also happen on other utilities i.e. water, as the standng charge far outweighs my usage. I could add road fund license to this group too but that's another debate.
In this ever environmentally conscious society surely a low all round user - or should I say polluter - like myself should be rewarded for my low use - not penalised!!.
Sorry for my first post being so long and a bit of a rant but I had to get some of these gripes/thoughts off my chest.
Oh...and who in the dickens voted for paying more for an easier system!!!!!!! :wall:
Paul aka Yip
Cardew wrote: »
The problem with a fixed standing charge is that it discriminates against those with very low consumption.
i.e if the standing charge is, say, £100 per year and kWh charge is 10p/kWh someone with an annual consumption of 1,000kWh is paying 20p/kWh whilst someone using 7,000kWh is paying 11.42p/kWh
MillicentBystander wrote: »
I was also surprised about the figure! And it's the reason why energy companies are currently fighting it out on the switching sites to have the cheapest 'fake' tariff to lure the rate tarts. The whole system is totally corrupt and needs change. The problem for us 'online savvies' on here is when the industry is sorted out we will be paying more than we are now...but the amount we will be paying will more honestly reflect the actual cost of supplying us with the fuel. I have never for a nano second believed the very fact that you sign up for an online deal means you cost the energy company £300/yr less than someone who opts for paper bills. It's a nonsense and always has been. A bit of a dirty secret in the industry. BG have now exposed this nonsense for all to see - we have been party to 75% of punters being ripped off so we can get bragging rights of having the cheapest online deal. And that's not right.
JimmyTheWig wrote: »
If the standing charge is set by Ofgem (which they are saying they will do, I believe) and this standing charge is set at a level which covers the cost of having someone as a customer then I think that this is fair.
Our old local newsagent used to charge a fee for delivering newspapers. You paid this fee plus the cost of the newspaper. If you wanted a second newspaper delivered then the extra you would pay would be the cost of the second newspaper as you were already paying for delivery.
This means that people with two newspapers are getting better value than those with one. Is this fair? Yes, because it reflects the newsagent's costs in providing the service.
Then consider the position on pre-pay tariffs. Even when PP tariffs were much higher than 'Standard' tariffs, the Big 6 bosses all gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee on energy that they made a loss on these tariffs.
Since then, under clear political pressure, these PP tariffs have been reduced by some companies to roughly the level of comparable tariffs. So obviously they are now operated at a considerable loss by some companies.
davidgmmafan wrote: »
Isn't their a price hold you can request . . . ?
How to make yours spendable again
Lower your band & save £1,000s
Including year's 2for1 movies for £1