All homes to be put on cheapest energy deal?

backfoot

Wywth wrote: »

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

Depends on your view of the possible consequences.

I'm not shouting foul, I think it's a long overdue change.

Like most people,I do the best the best I can for my family but it doesn't stop me taking an overall view about what is best for other people overall.

I am also an MSE'er on the Gas and electricity forum because of my background and I enjoy helping customers with advice.

There are different motivations for each of us. For me, I am much more interested in this Sector to follow the news,developments and in helping people rather than personal gain.

Wywth

backfoot wrote: »

Depends on your view of the possible consequences.

I'm not shouting foul, I think it's a long overdue change.

Like most people,I do the best the best I can for my family but it doesn't stop me taking an overall view about what is best for other people overall.

I am also an MSE'er on the Gas and electricity forum because of my background and I enjoy helping customers with advice.

There are different motivations for each of us. For me, I am much more interested in this Sector to follow the news,developments and in helping people rather than personal gain.

Presumably you would also fall into the catregory of the majority of the 3500 MSE'ers, who when asked if they simpler bills, said they would prefer this even if it meant some were paying more for their energy.

I think Martin still has a long career in front of him :money:

grahamc2003

Wywth wrote: »

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.

1st bold; Not sure what you mean by that. You aren't very clear in what you write. Do you mean suppliers don't pay comparison sites (i.e. referral sites, created to produce referral fees)? Or do you mean they have a choice of whether to appear on comparison sites, and hence don't have to pay them if they don't appear on it (because it wouldn't generate referrals)?

2nd bold - where do you gte this from? I think you just make things up as you go along. If not, please supply a link to the legisation governing what comparison sites must do.


It appears to me in this and all your other posts you clearly fail to understand most things about the eletricity supply industry and the differences between it and a truly competitive business environment. You seem to see to the end of your nose, and that's it, totally unaware of the secondary financial implications of anything (eg switching).

backfoot

Wywth wrote: »

Presumably you would also fall into the catregory of the majority of the 3500 MSE'ers, who when asked if they simpler bills, said they would prefer this even if it meant some were paying more for their energy.

I think Martin still has a long career in front of him :money:

It's too general a question for me to answer fully in the context you have given. Simpler bills must be a positive point for us all. I cannot see the exact link between simpler bills and paying more for energy. I didn't see Martin's poll or vote.

How are the two things connected?

If the question is having less made up packages of tariffs then I would support that and hence the govt.proposal even if it means an equalisation across customers. e.g I will lose out.

I don't support paying more for energy as a nation as a result of the change and can't see the connection. If the suppliers abuse the situation, then that's a different question regarding regulation.

On an individual level,I don't mind paying an equal amount to everyone else for energy. It is an essential service and I am happy to pay my fair share.

Wywth

grahamc2003 wrote: »

1st bold; Not sure what you mean by that. You aren't very clear in what you write. Do you mean suppliers don't pay comparison sites (i.e. referral sites, created to produce referral fees)? Or do you mean they have a choice of whether to appear on comparison sites, and hence don't have to pay them if they don't appear on it (because it wouldn't generate referrals)?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
There is no charge for a supplier to appear on a comparison site. The comparison site is obligated to display all generally available tariffs on their website (unless the supplier specifically requests otherwise)

Suppliers may agree to pay a comparison site for leads it directly generates (via click throughs, etc) but there is no obligation on the supplier to pay a referral fee and similarly there is no oblibation (and why would there be if there is no income generated) for a comparison site to provide a click through.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

2nd bold - where do you gte this from? I think you just make things up as you go along. If not, please supply a link to the legisation governing what comparison sites must do.

It appears to me in this and all your other posts you clearly fail to understand most things about the eletricity supply industry and the differences between it and a truly competitive business environment. You seem to see to the end of your nose, and that's it, totally unaware of the secondary financial implications of anything (eg switching).

More evidence that it is you, rather than me, that does not understand. Ebico were a leading force to ensure all suppliers/tariffs were included whether or not the supplier pays any referral fees.

Ebico do not pay any comparison site any fees, yet they appear on them all.

Wywth

backfoot wrote: »

...On an individual level,I don't mind paying an equal amount to everyone else for energy. It is an essential service and I am happy to pay my fair share.

Have you switched to Ebico yet? :cool:

Probably not the cheapest for you, but do appear to follow your ideals better than any other supplier - same price for all, no matter how they pay :T

grahamc2003

Wywth wrote: »

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
There is no charge for a supplier to appear on a comparison site. The comparison site is obligated to display all generally available tariffs on their website (unless the supplier specifically requests otherwise)

Suppliers may agree to pay a comparison site for leads it directly generates (via click throughs, etc) but there is no obligation on the supplier to pay a referral fee and similarly there is no oblibation (and why would there be if there is no income generated) for a comparison site to provide a click through.



More evidence that it is you, rather than me, that does not understand. Ebico were a leading force to ensure all suppliers/tariffs were included whether or not the supplier pays any referral fees.

Ebico do not pay any comparison site any fees, yet they appear on them all.

But that doesn't extrapolate into A supplier does not have to pay a comparison site anything and you contradict yourself with Suppliers may agree to pay a comparison site for leads it directly generates (via click throughs, etc).

Having entered into an agreement, then they have to pay. Not sure of the point of all that really - I don't have to pay The Nags Head anything at all, unless I go there and order a pint, when I do have to pay them.

The point is that Suppliers DO pay referral sites (and they pay them a lot, such that the referall sites become worth hundreds of millions). And all those fees are added onto your and my bills.

MillicentBystander

Not forgetting the cost of the supplier completing the switch! We have ended up with a system whereby a small %tage are continually switching in order to get the best deal/cash back etc. Done it myself because I could, basically. Trousered 00s of pounds of cash back as well. They/we generally end up on one of the cheapest tariffs but, ironically, their/our cost to the energy supplier has been considerable. Yet the very same energy suppliers loyal (some would say apathetic but hey ho) customers get charged the highest tariffs. Where is the fairness in all this? Listen, I'm going to be affected just like many on here but i temper the disappointment with the realisation that the new system will be fairer for the vast majority of punters and from a totally unselfish POV has to be a good thing.

backfoot

Wywth wrote: »

Have you switched to Ebico yet? :cool:

Probably not the cheapest for you, but do appear to follow your ideals better than any other supplier - same price for all, no matter how they pay :T

I think you are confusing what I am saying.

I have always used Comparison websites to help me choose a Supplier. I have tried to do the best for my family.

On a policy matter, I think the Government has realised an unfair system had been created with confusion and no real benefit. I can see the basis for trying to simplify it.Just because I have played the system doesn't stop me thinking it wasn't worth changing.

I can't recall EBICO coming out anywhere near the top of my comparisons so haven't really looked at them seriously.

Regarding payment methods and associated costs, there have been long running debates about whether they should be cost reflective. That's a complicated question, especially for those who are not allowed to participate in certain methods.

For me, I can pay by DD and find it convenient and if it is cost effective overall,that helps us all. If EBICO have a philosophy to put forward a different proposition it will only work if they compete on price and get enough DD payers to buy into their process.It's their problem not mine.

Glad you have sussed out my ideals for me...;). I'm sure you will find inconsistencies.....:D

[Deleted User]

Theres a vast number of people on eco 7 tariffs who should nt be. The old night storage heaters are long gone with them but they remain on these meters and tariffs. They have not been informed by any supplier about going on single rate tariff. I wonder if this new legislation includes the suppliers informing them of this situation because they are obviously not on the cheapest tariffs for their now minimal nighttime use of maybe less than one unit in the 7 hours. I have asked OFGEM about this but as usual havent had the courtesy of a reply. The same sort of thing applys to people who use no gas, will they be automatically switched to no standing charge tariffs