All homes to be put on cheapest energy deal?

Wywth

Cardew wrote: »

A Government sponsored organisation like the Energy Saving Trust could set up a single comparison network that would give factual information without the cashback/champagne/stamps incentive to switch - often to a more expensive/unsuitable tariff...

I think you're losing it, Cardew

I'm sure I've seen you post advice to others explaining how simple it is to find who is the cheapest supplier/tariff via any comparison site.

Cardew

Wywth wrote: »

I think you're losing it, Cardew

I'm sure I've seen you post advice to others explaining how simple it is to find who is the cheapest supplier/tariff via any comparison site.

Strange post!

Of course it is simple to use the websites, what is the relevance of that obvious statement?

What I am saying that we don't need loads of these commercial websites; whose sole objective is to get people to switch so they get their commission

A single Government sponsored organisation like the Energy Saving Trust - who are funded to give consumers advice - could run such a website.

steve-L

Soubrette wrote: »

I disagree, the less tariffs available, the less costs to administer for the company. The more transparency in the market, the easier it will be to compare between companies and thus greater competition. Greater competition should of course lead to lower prices.

That is my thought.... and it really depends what they mean by 4 tariffs......
If this is truly 3 + green and that includes the Ec7 options then that won't work but if it is really 3 tariffs for fixed, 3 for variable and 3 for Ec7 then I really think that is plenty and almost everyone who can be bothered will be paying less as the companies are forced to actually compete on published tariffs..

ollski

Cardew wrote: »

Strange post!

Of course it is simple to use the websites, what is the relevance of that obvious statement?

What I am saying that we don't need loads of these commercial websites; whose sole objective is to get people to switch so they get their commission

A single Government sponsored organisation like the Energy Saving Trust - who are funded to give consumers advice - could run such a website.

I work for a supplier, if I put a lead through to the office for a customer to change I get a tenner. My brother writes sales websites, if he gets a click through for a dual fuel swap he gets up to 100 quid a time. I have read on here about 53 quid p.a being an 'obscene' profit for a utility provider.

grahamc2003

Wywth wrote: »

Hmmm... yeah, give it to the shareholders instead :cool:

First of all you can't see why getting rid of as parasitic organisation which is increasing your bills is a good thing (for your bills), and then when it is pointed out to you, you then post seemingly that it is a bad thing that parasitic costs are being taken out.

Do you think adding more parasitic costs would be a good thing? Perhaps pay Uswitch £200 instead of £100 for each punter they get to switch? That would teach those nasty shareholders - as you yourself probably are via your pension. In fact it wouldn't affect shareholders - the profits are informally set at a certain return on captial, and should they make more, the government would informally step in.

I'm all for criticisng the government/suppliers when they make crap decisions, but I don't see much point in not acknowledging the few good decisions they rarely make.

Cardew

On a DECC website:

According to Ofgem, only 15% of households switched gas supplier last year and 17% switched electricity supplier

So in round figures about 2.5 million gas and 3.5million electricity customers.

Of course not all of those switched via comparison websites -some will have approached the Utility firm direct and others waylaid by agents outside supermarkets or doorstep knocking.

However the numbers via comparison websites( and quidco etc) are huge and all of course resulting in higher charges for customers.

toolmaker54

The government stepped in before with all these tariffs and BG reduced theirs to four and the price went up. Now BG have added more tarriffs, so what was the point of the exercise if only to increase the price.

I still remember the time the prices rose by 20% then BG dropped by 7% and they were telling me how wonderful they were by dropping their prices by 7%.

Prices will always keep rising no matter how many wonderful tariffs they come up with

Wywth

grahamc2003 wrote: »

First of all you can't see why getting rid of as parasitic organisation which is increasing your bills is a good thing (for your bills), and then when it is pointed out to you, you then post seemingly that it is a bad thing that parasitic costs are being taken out.

Do you think adding more parasitic costs would be a good thing? Perhaps pay Uswitch £200 instead of £100 for each punter they get to switch? That would teach those nasty shareholders - as you yourself probably are via your pension. In fact it wouldn't affect shareholders - the profits are informally set at a certain return on captial, and should they make more, the government would informally step in.

I'm all for criticisng the government/suppliers when they make crap decisions, but I don't see much point in not acknowledging the few good decisions they rarely make.

You clearly fail to understand how some marketing departments feel their inclusion and ability for new customers to be switched via a comparison site is beneficial to the supplier.

A supplier does not have to pay a comparison site anything (but then the comparison site does not have to allow a customer to switch via them either), but comparison sites must allow all suppliers and generally available tariffs to be included on a comparison site (unless the supplier specifically wishes otherwise)

I'm also confused as to why you are more or less alone in thinking that these new government proposals are good - that's certainly not the consensus of the posts I've read.

backfoot

Wywth wrote: »

I'm also confused as to why you are more or less alone in thinking that these new government proposals are good - that's certainly not the consensus of the posts I've read.

The silent majority are happy or not bothered.

MSE'ers will generally have benefitted in the past especially the vocal ones now. The party is over and they are shouting foul.

Wywth

backfoot wrote: »

The silent majority are happy or not bothered.

MSE'ers will generally have benefitted in the past especially the vocal ones now. The party is over and they are shouting foul.

I suspect not bothered ... or even uninformed. I'm not sure why you would think would be happy if they understood the possible consequences.

You are an MSE'er. Are you shouting foul?
Anyone can join MSE, though I'm not sure why they would waste their time here if they were not interested in saving themself some money