Standing Charge vs No Standing Charge

nosaynt

i am with scottish power on an econ 7 ( day rate and night rate) on a no standing charge tariff , this means i get charged a higher rate for the first 225 Kwh per quarter (90 days) and then a lower rate for the rest , however i have noticed on my last few bills that they decided to read my meter before 90 day ( think it was 76 ) and charged me full rate then on next bill they read meter late ( 104 days ) and charged me full rate for 300 Kwh , when i called and questioned this they said that i was charged extra to take into account the days over the quarter , when questioned about the bill for 76 days and why i didnt recieve any cheap rate they said it doesnt work like that , surely this is unfair?? , so i have taken note of the exact date they read meter last and i will provide them with an accurate 90 day reading for my next bill to see what happens

Wywth

nosaynt wrote: »

i am with scottish power on an econ 7 ( day rate and night rate) on a no standing charge tariff , this means i get charged a higher rate for the first 225 Kwh per quarter (90 days) and then a lower rate for the rest , however i have noticed on my last few bills that they decided to read my meter before 90 day ( think it was 76 ) and charged me full rate then on next bill they read meter late ( 104 days ) and charged me full rate for 300 Kwh , when i called and questioned this they said that i was charged extra to take into account the days over the quarter , when questioned about the bill for 76 days and why i didnt recieve any cheap rate they said it doesnt work like that , surely this is unfair?? , so i have taken note of the exact date they read meter last and i will provide them with an accurate 90 day reading for my next bill to see what happens

Well they were right ... and then wrong.

It does work like that!

The tier 1 charge applied to the first 225 kWh (90 days) should actually be apportioned pro rata to the number of days the bill covers.

So a bill covering a period of 104 days should be billed at the higher tier 1 rate for the initial 260kWh (not 300 kWh!)
Similarly, a bill covering just 74 days should only be charge at the higher tier 1 rate for the initial 185kWh.

I suggest you follow the suppliers complaint procedure to get this resolved.

DragonQ

Wywth wrote: »

The tier 1 charge applied to the first 225 kWh (90 days) should actually be apportioned pro rata to the number of days the bill covers.

I've always wondered about this. Surely for whichever utility you use for heating, this means customers end up paying more if billed less frequently. Here's an example, assuming the first 900 kWh per year (75 kWh per month or 225 kWh per quarter) are "high rate".

Oct = 300 kWh per month = 225 kWh cheap rate
Nov-Feb = 500 kWh per month = 425 kWh cheap rate
Mar-Apr = 300 kWh per month = 225 kWh cheap rate
May-Sep = 50 kWh per month = 0 kWh cheap rate

That's a total of 3150 kWh. If billed monthly, you'd get 2375 kWh at the cheap rate. If billed quarterly (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec), you only get 2325 kWh at the cheap rate. This difference is due to the fact that each month between May and September doesn't even use all of the high rate gas/elec, but in the Apr-Jun quarterly period you would use all of the high rate gas/elec for that 3 months and get some at the cheap rate. If billed yearly, you'd only get 2250 kWh at the cheap rate.

Unless I'm missing something...

Wywth

DragonQ wrote: »

I've always wondered about this. Surely for whichever utility you use for heating, this means customers end up paying more if billed less frequently. Here's an example, assuming the first 900 kWh per year (75 kWh per month or 225 kWh per quarter) are "high rate".

Oct = 300 kWh per month = 225 kWh cheap rate
Nov-Feb = 500 kWh per month = 425 kWh cheap rate
Mar-Apr = 300 kWh per month = 225 kWh cheap rate
May-Sep = 50 kWh per month = 0 kWh cheap rate

That's a total of 3150 kWh. If billed monthly, you'd get 2375 kWh at the cheap rate. If billed quarterly (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec), you only get 2325 kWh at the cheap rate. This difference is due to the fact that each month between May and September doesn't even use all of the high rate gas/elec, but in the Apr-Jun quarterly period you would use all of the high rate gas/elec for that 3 months and get some at the cheap rate. If billed yearly, you'd only get 2250 kWh at the cheap rate.

Unless I'm missing something...

That's correct, and occurs as you say because in your example some months/days consumption does not meet the tier 1 level.

As you say, if you were only billed for a whole year, only 3150kWh - 900kWh = 2250kWh per year would theoretically be charged at the lower tier 2 rate. (although they would probably still calculate on a quarterly basis, even if they had to estimate intervening readings)

However Scottish Power usually bill on a quarterly basis, give or take a few days. If one billing period is short, then another tends to be long, as in the example given by nosaynt. (which is actually quite an extreme example)
So it tends to be swings and roundabouts.

DragonQ

Do all energy suppliers usually bill quarterly then (even when paying by direct debit)? I remember being able to "request a bill" when I was with E.On, so in theory you could request one monthly.

Wywth

DragonQ wrote: »

Do all energy suppliers usually bill quarterly then (even when paying by direct debit)? I remember being able to "request a bill" when I was with E.On, so in theory you could request one monthly.

No, not every company.

Eon do not operate 2 tier pricing anymore.
(save perhaps for the odd existing fixed term tariff which may still be running out)

mrputney08

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

HiYa Cardew, yes 'ever' was a typo that should read never.

My understanding is Ebico are not in the big 6, not part of the consultation agreement, and as yet I'm unclear as to how those smaller players are to be allowed to find a 'workaround' or otherwise. TBH their financial model and % of the market is so small in the grand scheme of things I see no reason for GOV to impose any change whatsoever on them. On a personal level I have no issues whatsoever with 'cross subsidy' by individual small suppliers such as Ebico et-al and if they were allowed to continue to function with no changes whatsoever it would have no influence at all on the overall market. I do however, as stated, have an issue with 'cross subsidy' with the big 6 suppliers.

I am a low user and I was considering switching to Ebico UNTIL I found out that Ebico energy is supplied by SSE, and Ebico will be putting a standing charge on you in July 2013. :eek:

Nada666

mrputney08 wrote: »

I am a low user and I was considering switching to Ebico UNTIL I found out that Ebico energy is supplied by SSE, and Ebico will be putting a standing charge on you in July 2013. :eek:

Source, please.

Cardew

mrputney08 wrote: »

I am a low user and I was considering switching to Ebico UNTIL I found out that Ebico energy is supplied by SSE, and Ebico will be putting a standing charge on you in July 2013. :eek:

This is their website today:

https://www.ebico.org.uk/

Both on the website, and this month's newsletter they emphasise that they have no standing charge; and they have to give notice of any change in their tariff.

So how did you 'find out' they were to introduce a standing charge?

If your information is incorrect(as I suspect it is) it can damage a firm.

Wywth

mrputney08 wrote: »

I am a low user and I was considering switching to Ebico UNTIL I found out that Ebico energy is supplied by SSE, and Ebico will be putting a standing charge on you in July 2013. :eek:

Source? :cool: