Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

jimexbox

vinnyph wrote: »

Triple value guarantee.

Guarantee Quentin will not give details of his UW beating cashback card.

Guarantee Jimexbox will not give his annual usage figures and region.

Guarantee Cardew will believe that the prices given on price comparison sites are accurate.

The small print

:rolleyes:

Ive already given you my projected spend. Which you can choose to believe or not.

That doesn't change the fact that UW are £255 more expensive than my current tarrif.

Maz

vinnyph wrote: »

Triple value guarantee.

Guarantee Quentin will not give details of his UW beating cashback card.

Guarantee Jimexbox will not give his annual usage figures and region.

Guarantee Cardew will believe that the prices given on price comparison sites are accurate.

The small print

:rolleyes:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

keggs

1carminestocky wrote: »

I've given my view on the triple value guarantee many times, you must have missed it when you disappear for your pint or 2. I gave it just a few posts ago, in fact. I'm much more forthcoming than you when asked questions, I think readers will see. For instance, I'm always more than happy to provide full details of my annual usage. Unlike you, bizarrely...

Isn't it interesting that when members of the AUWF have no real answer to either questions put to them or to comments that people actually like what UW offers them they resort to personal attacks.

Janinenew was effectively told that she must be stupid for becoming a customer and I'm apparently 'out of my depth' for agreeing with here.

In your case people suddenly disappear only to come back when they think the dust has settled and everyone has moved on.

To Cardew, Jimexbox, Quentin and any other member of the AUWF, the simple fact is: Janinenew and many, many other members - in fact hundreds of thousands of us actually LIKE the Utility Warehouse.

Which part of 'LIKE the Utility Warehouse' don't you understand.

Steve
UW Distributor & Very Happy Customer

keggs

jimexbox wrote: »

Ive already given you my projected spend. Which you can choose to believe or not.

That doesn't change the fact that UW are £255 more expensive than my current tarrif.

No you haven't. More evasion:rotfl:

vinnyph

jimexbox wrote: »

Ive already given you my projected spend. Which you can choose to believe or not.

That doesn't change the fact that UW are £255 more expensive than my current tarrif.

When I work out the actual annual price for UW I usually find they are less than the annual prices quoted on price comparison sites for UW. It would be interesting to find how much less your actual prices with UW would be. A few years ago I did a calculation and the difference was more than £200 out.

janninew

jimexbox wrote: »

Though UW reps rely on tapping up friends and family who will instinctively trust their ludicrously worded triple guarantee. This guarantee is used to lull the unsuspecting (trusting family members) that UW offer fantastic prices, when we all know the only tariffs more expensive are Eco 'feel better' ones.

So janninew as a UW customer what do you personally make of their infamous triple guarantee?

T be honest i don't have an opinion on the 'infamous' triple guarantee! The only thing i'm really bothered about is the money that i pay each month and making it the smallest amount possible, thats what moneysaving is in my opinion! I don't have time to pick apart the small print and i'm really not interested in doing so. I'm happy with UW and i'm happy with the price i pay. I'm not an expert when it comes to energy companies and i don't profess to be, i have found a company that works for me and i'm sticking with it!

Quentin

vinnyph wrote: »

When I work out the actual annual price for UW I usually find they are less than the annual prices quoted on price comparison sites for UW. It would be interesting to find how much less your actual prices with UW would be. A few years ago I did a calculation and the difference was more than £200 out.

UW reps are trained to suggest that the switching sites are corrupt.

As shown by the rep talking to the spanish teachers:

http://www.networkerplus.co.uk/videos/signing-customers.html

Could it be to overcome the objection a not so gullible might raise - "You tell me uw prices are cheap (and covered by the worthless guarantee), but on all the comparison sites they come out expensive"

The figures given on the switching sites can be checked independently - the switching sites are aware of that, and would soon lose their credibility via sites like MSE were they corrupt!

vinnyph

Quentin, you falsely claim that UW distributors are taught to mislead about price comparison sites. What about this on the Advertising Standards agency site then.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=41342

Non-broadcast Adjudications
News International plc t/a The Times
1 Virginia Street
London
E1 9BD
Complaints upheld in last 12 months: 3
Simply Energy t/a SimplySwitch
Jessop House
100 Tamworth Road
Croydon
CR0 1XX
Complaints upheld in last 12 months: 3
Date: 24th May 2006
Media: National press
Sector: Utilities
Complaint(s) from: London
Complaint type: Public
Complaint
Objection to a national press ad, for a price comparison service, that was headlined "Find the best gas, electricity and broadband deal in one easy phone call". Text below stated "The Times has teamed up with SimplySwitch, the leading price comparison service, to help our readers save hundreds of pounds a year on gas, electricity and broadband charges ... We find you the best deal, including capped price offers Independent - not owned by any supplier ... You can save over £200* by changing your gas and electricity provider ...". The asterisk was linked to small print that stated "*Energy savings based on a customer changing from British Gas for gas and their local electricity provider for electricity and changing their payment method to direct debit. Illustration based on 24,000kwh of gas and 5,250kwh of electricity per annum. Prices correct on July 5, 2005". The complainant objected that:

1. the claim "We find you the best deal" was misleading, because SimplySwitch did not include in their search all suppliers such as Telecom Plus, with whom she had found cheaper energy than with the deal found for her by SimplySwitch;

2. the claim "Independent - not owned by any supplier" was misleading, because SimplySwitch received commission from suppliers and

3. the claims "to help our readers save hundreds of pounds a year on gas, electricity and broadband charges" and "You can save over £200* by changing your gas and electricity provider" were misleading, because she believed not all consumers would save that amount.
Codes section: 3.1, 7.1, 19.1
Adjudication
REVISED ADJUDICATION:
This adjudication replaces that published on the 15th February 2006. The wording of point 2 has been revised, although the complaint remains upheld.

SimplySwitch said the ad was no longer appearing. They sent a copy of the ad that was currently running.

1. Complaint not upheld
SimplySwitch said they provided information on the tariffs of every licensed UK energy supplier, regardless of whether or not they had a commercial agreement with the supplier. They explained that, at the time the ad appeared, Telecom Plus did not feature on their website because of an error, which they had taken steps to rectify before they learned of the complaint. SimplySwitch said the error had now been corrected. They sent an extract from their website which showed an example of a search for suppliers; Telecom Plus was listed among the search results.

The ASA considered that readers would infer from the claim "We find you the best deal" that SimplySwitch compared every gas, electricity and broadband supplier and identified the cheapest tariff for the consumer. We noted that, although SimplySwitch had failed to identify the cheapest supplier in the complainant's case, that was because of an error that had since been corrected. We were satisfied that SimplySwitch included all suppliers in their search and were therefore able to find consumers the best deal. We did not object to the claim.

We investigated under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find the claim in breach.

2. Complaint upheld
SimplySwitch said they were a privately owned company. They explained that, if they had a commercial agreement with a supplier, they received commission when a consumer switched to that supplier through their service and, furthermore, although they could give consumers information about the tariffs of all suppliers, they could not switch consumers to suppliers unless they had a commercial agreement with them. They said they had commercial agreements with every supplier that had over 5% of the market share and also with many smaller suppliers. SimplySwitch asserted that they dealt with suppliers on a commercial basis irrespective of their size; they had deals with very small suppliers and also with some companies who were new to the market. They said, however, the basis on which suppliers decided to form commercial agreements with them was not something they were privy to. They believed they acted independently of suppliers and argued that the ad made clear that the basis for the claim "Independent" was that they were not owned by any supplier. They suggested amending the claim "impartial switching service" to "impartial comparison service".

The ASA considered that the claim "Independent - not owned by any supplier" suggested no commercial link between SimplySwitch and suppliers and therefore that consumers would think that the "impartial switching service" was available in respect of any supplier. We noted that SimplySwitch could switch consumers only to those suppliers who paid them commission. We concluded that, because their capacity to switch consumers was dependent on which suppliers paid them commission, the claims "Independent - not owned by any supplier" and "impartial switching service", when read together in the same advertisment, were misleading. We noted the ad was no longer appearing but told SimplySwitch not to repeat the claim to be "independent" in future advertising without making plain that the switching service was limited to those suppliers with which they had a commercial agreement.

The claim breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

We considered that the claim "impartial comparison service" was acceptable and welcomed SimplySwitch's willingness to co-operate on that point.

3. Complaint upheld
SimplySwitch argued that the qualifying text, which was linked to the claim "You can save over £200*", made clear what the savings were based on. They provided a spreadsheet that showed the energy savings available, in 14 postcode areas, to consumers who switched from British Gas and their local electricity supplier, changed their payment method to direct debit and used 24,000 kwh of gas and 5,250 kwh of electricity per annum. They said those consumption figures were included in the ad by mistake and should have been 20,500 kwh of gas and 3,300 kwh of electricity per annum, which were the figures recommended by Ofgem and Energywatch. They provided a second spreadsheet that showed the energy savings available to consumers who used 20,500 kwh of gas and 3,300 kwh of electricity per annum. They explained that each postcode represented one of the 14 Public Electricity Supply (PES) areas and that pricing in the market was based on the PES areas. SimplySwitch said the entire country was split into those 14 areas because, before privatization, they were the areas PES licence agreements fell into. They said the pricing that was relevant to one postal sector would also be relevant to every other postal sector in the same PES area, so, providing that the household met the conditions in the qualifying text, the savings available for one postcode in the PES area could be achieved in every other postcode in the PES area; the savings were therefore achievable across the whole country. They said the savings were available to customers who were still with British Gas and their local PES electricity supplier and, according to information from Ofgem, over 50% of gas customers and over 50% of electricity customers had never switched supplier. SimplySwitch provided information on the number of customers they dealt with in October 2005 who used more than 20,500 kwh of gas and 3,300 kwh of electricity per annum and who had never changed supplier. According to their own data, 49.5% of customers quoted in October 2005 were still with their local PES electricity supplier and 60.01% were still with British Gas. The information showed that 17.6% of the customers who made enquiries with SimplySwitch in October 2005 and who met the conditions in the qualifying text would have been able to save £200 or more by switching supplier.

The ASA considered that readers would infer from the ad that everyone who used SimplySwitch's service would save over £200 if they switched from British Gas and their local electricity supplier, changed their payment method to direct debit and used 24,000 kwh of gas and 5,250 kwh of electricity per annum. We noted the spreadsheet showed savings of over £200 were available in the 14 PES areas. We understood, however, that the savings applied only to consumers who had stayed with British Gas and their local electricity supplier after privatization. We considered that consumers may have switched to other gas and electricity providers after privatization and may not realise that the term "local electricity provider" in the small print referred to their electricity provider prior to privatization. We considered that the ad did not make sufficiently clear that the savings claim applied only to people who had not switched suppliers before and told SimplySwitch to make that clear in future.

We considered that SimplySwitch had demonstrated that more than 10% of consumers would save over £200. We noted, however, SimplySwitch had previously been advised by the CAP Copy Advice team that, because not all consumers would save money, their savings claims should be conditional, not absolute. We were concerned that SimplySwitch had not followed that advice and told them to state "You could save over £200", not "You can save over £200", in future.

We noted SimplySwitch's comment that the consumption figures in the ad's qualifying text were included by mistake. We told SimplySwitch to take more care in future to ensure that average consumption figures used as the basis for claims were based on up-to-date figures recommended by Energywatch.

The claims breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

We noted, furthermore, that the current ad stated " ... find a better deal ... switching suppliers can save more money than ever ... this service will save you both time and money ..." and did not explain the basis of the savings claims. We reminded SimplySwitch to ensure that savings claims were conditional and to include, wherever they appeared, a caveat that explained the basis of them.

Quentin

vinnyph wrote: »

Quentin, you falsely claim that UW distributors are taught to mislead about price comparison sites.

How can it be a "false claim" that uw reps are taught to diss the switching sites when we can see the ex policeman uw rep showing the reps how to do it in the uw training video!

And reproducing ASA adjudications is a strange thing for the uw to do here. Would you like all the ASA adjudications against uw for misleading advertising to be reproduced?

jimexbox

Please click on the thumbnail, UW are even more expensive than I thought. I haven't copyrighted this material, so any reps who wish to print it out for their pitch, feel free.;)