EDF direct debit manipulation

Just_landed

brewerdave wrote: »

...have to agree with victor2 - generally the CS people have been polite and apologetic,altho' one adviser in the early days of my contract did get a bit narky (I insisted that my calculations were correct and that my DD didn't need to increase by £65 pm!!) when she warned me that any debit balances over £150 would be taken as a lump sum at review-but then couldn't tell me when the review was!!!
I'm continuing with my policy of no supplied readings until a meter reader commeth - I'm comfortably in credit even after I negotiated a decent DD decrease earlier in the Summer - not paying much more now than I was with EON in 2011.:)

Look at it this way if E D F, British Gas & Scottish Power which I have experience of do this, which they do. Imagine how much of customers money they hold. If just £100 in credit x millions of accounts, they must be making a fortune in interest out of our money. There must be a government body who could force the power companies to play fair, so why don't they. How many people get their wages before they do their work, I would hazard a guess and say none.

victor2

steve-L wrote: »

There are two basic ways to do a tariff, standing change and then unit charge and tier-1/tier-2.
Everything else is just obfuscation of the actual costs.... however if they do want to make discounts they should first have to publish the actual tariff and then people can see it for themselves.

Standing charge or no standing charge in itself makes it impossible to compare prices, as the effective unit cost varies with different levels of use.
Abolishing the two tier system would level the playing field more, but discounts can make all the difference when you consider some suppliers effectively offer a "free month" for staying with them.
Then there's the old argument of fixed versus variable tariffs. How do you compare those?

It could be simplified, having become far too complicated for even the most savvy of customers to accurately compare. That is where the comparison sites prove their worth.
A simpler structure would make it easier to understand, but would penalise those who are able to make some sense of the available information and get on a very competitive tariff.
With stricter tariff rules, how long do you think it would be before suppliers come up with promotional savings schemes which make their tariffs look more attractive?
I appreciate your reference to loans and APRs. They are a very useful pointer, but you still have to dig under the surface to understand the real cost.

victor2

Just_landed wrote: »

Look at it this way if E D F, British Gas & Scottish Power which I have experience of do this, which they do. Imagine how much of customers money they hold. If just £100 in credit x millions of accounts, they must be making a fortune in interest out of our money. There must be a government body who could force the power companies to play fair, so why don't they. How many people get their wages before they do their work, I would hazard a guess and say none.

But pick a point in time (like Spring), when many accounts have a debit balance. How much has the supplier loaned to its customers then?
That is the whole idea of paying by monthly direct debits. It is unfortunate that some suppliers have taken to swinging things in their favour by targetting a zero balance at a low point on the account balance "curve". That is the issue there has been much discussion and complaints about.

Toxteth_OGrady

My preferred system would be monthly meter readings (either input by me or from a smart meter) and a variable DD payment that pays what I use each month. Not sure if that would suit everybody though?

jalexa

victor2 wrote: »

But pick a point in time (like Spring), when many accounts have a debit balance.

I take it you mean accounts that are not 'spring aligned'? Indeed, to take Snowcat's example, I calculate a 16% gas deficit in April for a December 'annual review'.

Scottish Power claim to operate a fixed annual review but also review every quarter on a 12 month rolling calculation. At least that's what I think the SP rep explained in a recent thread. I wonder if the quarterly review accepts a 16% gas deficit if the monthly payment is correct? For a zero balance on which date? I'm struggling to understand the answer.

steve-L

victor2 wrote: »

Standing charge or no standing charge in itself makes it impossible to compare prices, as the effective unit cost varies with different levels of use.

Its not impossible with a spreadsheet..... it complicates it but equally some people seem to want it.... personally I think that except in some weird* cases its just HIDING the standing charge....

*weird - It seems it cheaper for some people to have dual fuel and then use ZERO gas.... (presumably because they don't have any gas using boiler, fire or cooker) .. hence meter that goes nowhere?

Abolishing the two tier system would level the playing field more,

I agree but some people seem to want to keep them because it looks cheaper FOR THEM......
The issue is it might just appear cheaper.... as someone pointed out on some thread the consumer can get £70 cashback for switching... but each switch then costs the companies money....
(Someone said £300 which sounds reasonable)
All this gets passed on to the consumers..... at some point.

but discounts can make all the difference when you consider some suppliers effectively offer a "free month" for staying with them.

Is it really a FREE MONTH or is it some fine print definition that says based on your August Gas usage? (i.e. Not a real month)

Then there's the old argument of fixed versus variable tariffs. How do you compare those?

They are different ... if you decide to fix you don't need to switch every 3 months to ensure your getting the 'best tariff'. You reduce your risk and pay a bit more... (or a lot more depending which tariff you're on) .... if you don't fix then you presumably need to keep checking the prices and see you are on the best tariff....

Say this does cost the energy utility £300 each time (or at least £70) this shows a motivation for 'a free month'..... but it also means they have more costs.... and these get put back to the consumer .... (always the consumer)

It could be simplified, having become far too complicated for even the most savvy of customers to accurately compare. That is where the comparison sites prove their worth.

Only the comparison sites are usually* wrong!

*I checked 4, they all came back with a different 'cheapest' for the same figures.. that tells me 3/4 must be wrong! (though I suspect they all are)

Moreover - when I pretend to have a different current supplier that changes the cheapest as well! Could it be they weight so the 'cheapest' is not you present supplier (even when it is)....

A simpler structure would make it easier to understand, but would penalise those who are able to make some sense of the available information and get on a very competitive tariff.

I don't believe it will long term..... the utility companies would need to be seen to be providing the cheapest option by a easy to check method..... less people switching actually means cheaper supply for everyone.....

i.e. If I could see that I could change from my present supplier and save £15 a year then why bother.... £150 is another matter!

With stricter tariff rules, how long do you think it would be before suppliers come up with promotional savings schemes which make their tariffs look more attractive?
I appreciate your reference to loans and APRs. They are a very useful pointer, but you still have to dig under the surface to understand the real cost.

This is really the issue..... I agree and this should be regulated if it is to work.
The savings schemes almost always seem to be what complicates matters! (and the utilities excuse as to why they can't just publish prices)....

Also the savings schemes usually come with the conditions that end up costing the consumer more.... like having a lock in charge so they can't switch.....

steve-L

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

My preferred system would be monthly meter readings (either input by me or from a smart meter) and a variable DD payment that pays what I use each month. Not sure if that would suit everybody though?

It would seem to be the obvious!

Those who don't like it though would probably include people who are poor at managing their money....
For these people their could be a govt. backed energy account provided by banks, post office etc. (anyone but the utilities companies) that allows you to put in what your supplier thinks you will use..... and if that is over they get paid interest (albeit probably 1-2%).....The interest should be funded by the utilities who OVER ESTIMATED...

WestonDave

British Gas used to operate a variable direct debit scheme which gave you the same discounts as fixed direct debits - if you input a monthly reading in response to a text message then it would be an accurate billed amount taken, if you didn't put in a meter reading then the payment would be estimated. Not sure whether that still applies to their current tariffs but I was using it on their old Click 6 tariff.

victor2

Couple of radical suggestions here that we should pay for our utilities as (or shortly after) we use them!
Makes perfect sense, not unlike buying petrol for your car, except you pay for that before you actually use it. Would teach people the need to budget for the seasons. The idea of charging the same amount each month to spread the winter costs over summer is probably how we got to the confusing mess we are in today.
Of course, you'll get the bleeding heart stories every winter of the people who can't afford to keep warm, but maybe we just have to toughen up and learn. Remember the days before central heating?

jalexa

victor2 wrote: »

Remember the days before central heating?

Yes, you couldn't consume energy quicker than the coal-man could carry it. Then the nation installed 30kW gas guzzlers for all.