Daligas

Mourg

MoneySavingExpert.com Insert:

There are more Daligas reviews on our Cheap Energy Club discussion:
Daligas Reviews

Back to Mourg's original post...

Hi,

Just joined to ask about this new supplier I came across called, Daligas. Has anyone heard of them or has any experience? I'm asking cause the prices look quite competitive and they have a very straight-forward way of working out charges - hence it caught my attention as my current supplier (Scottish Power) has raised prices beyond belief.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers

dude89

Anyone for a bit of spam?

dude89

Though if the prices are correct they are coming out cheapest for average usage for my area. But they are not on comparison websites

Edit: they are appearing on energylinx and are at the top my £30 for average usage in my area

Mourg

dude89 wrote: »

Though if the prices are correct they are coming out cheapest for average usage for my area. But they are not on comparison websites

Edit: they are appearing on energylinx and are at the top my £30 for average usage in my area

That is EXACTLY why I am asking about them as well ... rather than a feeble attempt at spamming!

ilikepoints

So anyone tried Daligas out yet? Prices do seem very good.

dogshome

Looking at their website they are certainly doing things differently - There is just one price per Kwh, no matter in which part of the country you live in

The Kwh price of 3.28p Ex VAT, is cheaper than EDF's Blue+ April 2014 for the Eastern Region, which is based on prices fixed in July 2012

The Standing Charge, charged monthly, works out to 27.4p +VAT a day, which is a tad expensive for low users.

So it looks good, but we have seen attractive prices from new-on-the-block suppliers before, (FU?), that don't last long and as yet Daligas are not registered with the Energy Ombudsman

ilikepoints

dogshome wrote: »

The Standing Charge, charged monthly, works out to 27.4p +VAT a day, which is a tad expensive for low users.

So it looks good, but we have seen attractive prices from new-on-the-block suppliers before, (FU?), that don't last long and as yet Daligas are not registered with the Energy Ombudsman

Npower are going to be charging me 44.3p standing charge so it's better than them and the lack of cancellation fees looks promising too.

What are the drawbacks to the lack of ombudsman registration? Is there any legitimate reason why they might not be registered?

I can't find any news articles or reviews elsewhere about them, seems they started out in February so would have expected something by now.

dogshome

The Energy Ombudsman is in fact a 'Trade Association', and not Govt. funded.
Suppliers pay a joining fee and face the costs of investigation when a customer makes a Complaint - The advantage for the supplier is that their dirty laundry is washed out of public gaze, and any compensatory payments awarded to a customer tend to be on the mean side.

Unfortunately, successive Govts have killed off the State funded agencies that dealt with Gas/Elec complaints, so the only investagative body left for the consumer is the Energy Ombudsman - But if a supplier is not registerd, the Ombudsman refuses to take on the problem and the customers only avenue of redress is the Small Claims Court

Wywth

dogshome wrote: »

The Energy Ombudsman is in fact a 'Trade Association', and not Govt. funded.
Suppliers pay a joining fee and face the costs of investigation when a customer makes a Complaint - The advantage for the supplier is that their dirty laundry is washed out of public gaze, and any compensatory payments awarded to a customer tend to be on the mean side.

Unfortunately, successive Govts have killed off the State funded agencies that dealt with Gas/Elec complaints, so the only investagative body left for the consumer is the Energy Ombudsman - But if a supplier is not registerd, the Ombudsman refuses to take on the problem and the customers only avenue of redress is the Small Claims Court

The role of the ombudsman is indeed to prevent numerous cases that can usually be resolved out of court from clogging up the courts.

Only suppliers that subscribe to the ombudsman scheme are ruled upon (because only they have contractually agreed to abide by any decision of the ombudsman)

I'm not sure why you claim decisions by the ombudsman are "mean". :huh:
The ombudsman scheme effectively works by the ombudsman looking at both sides of the story of any complain, and then either asking the supplier to make any reasonable suggestion for appropriate compensation (and/or other actions actions), or otherwise ultimately coming up for what they think is a reasonable resolution. This isn't necessarily limited to what the law would demand.
The customer is them offered this proposed resolution.

The ombudsman only orders the supplier to act if the customer agrees to the proposed resolution.

The customer is under no obligation to accept the resolution offered - they can always take the matter to court if they still feel the matter is not fairly being resolved. The court will only consider the merits of any calim on a strictly legal basis.

If the resolution offered via the ombudsman was "meam", surely a lot more people would reject the proposed resolution and end up clogging the courts up.
If this became apparent, surely the ombudsman would be taken to task as they were not fullfilling the task they were supposed to be doing.

dogshome

Hy wywth
Please read my my post - I did not say the Ombudsmans decisions were mean, I said that 'Compensatory' payments were mean, and that is based on report-back posts by complainants

There are two questions for the Ombudsman to consider
1) Where the customer has been disadvantaged by errors in billing or some other action by the supplier, the customer should be 'recompensed' for the financial loss that is proven

2) Where the customer has suffered stress and financial expense in dealing with spurious payment demands from a supplier, including repetitive phone calls, evermore threatening letters, visits by bailiffs, and even in some cases, Entry by Warrent to fit Paygo meters.- It is 'Compensatory' payments for these actions where the reported Ombudsmans figures fall into the 'mean' catagory - Unless that is you regard £40 as being generous.

Having been through the mills of the suppliers Complaints procedure and then the Ombudsman, it's very tough individual who then elects extend the agony into the Small Claims Court - The pity of it is, is that if they gone to the SMC in the first place, they would probably been better off financially and have had more clout in seeing that the supplier carried out the Courts decision, than they are with the Ombudsman




T

Wywth

dogshome wrote: »

Hy wywth
Please read my my post - I did not say the Ombudsmans decisions were mean, I said that 'Compensatory' payments were mean, and that is based on report-back posts by complainants

There are two questions for the Ombudsman to consider
1) Where the customer has been disadvantaged by errors in billing or some other action by the supplier, the customer should be 'recompensed' for the financial loss that is proven

2) Where the customer has suffered stress and financial expense in dealing with spurious payment demands from a supplier, including repetitive phone calls, evermore threatening letters, visits by bailiffs, and even in some cases, Entry by Warrent to fit Paygo meters.- It is 'Recompense' payments for these actions where the reported Ombudsmans figures fall into the 'mean' catagory - Unless that is you regard £40 as being generous.

Having been though the mills of the suppliers Complaints procedure and then the Ombudsman, it's very tough individual who then elects extend the agony into the Small Claims Count - The pity of it is, is that if they gone to the SMC in the first place, they would probably been better off financially and have had more clout in seeing that the supplier carried out the Courts decision, than they are with the Ombudsman




T

Hy dogshome,

What you actually said was:

dogshome wrote: »

The Energy Ombudsman is in fact a 'Trade Association', and not Govt. funded.
Suppliers pay a joining fee and face the costs of investigation when a customer makes a Complaint - The advantage for the supplier is that their dirty laundry is washed out of public gaze, and any compensatory payments awarded to a customer tend to be on the mean side....

(My highlighting)

If the complaining customer doesn't think such award was satisfactory, then they should have refused it and claimed the full amount they though was reasonable through the courts.

Compensation awards should be neither mean nor generous, but compensate the reasonable costs (or other loss) reasonably incurred by the successful complainant.

There is no "agony" pursuing a valid claim through the small claims court.

The small claims court is the low-hassle way to take legal action for up to £10,000 (in England and Wales, it's less elsewhere) against a company or individual you feel has wronged you.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court