PLEASE CHECK MY NEW soa

NekoZombie

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

i was starting to feel i was :wall: :rotfl: only kidding:D

This whole case is wrong, if you go back a few threads The op,s income is soley benefit or grant based add to that the OR reduceing electric and gas and its all wrong. True the utilatys may be inflated a bit but what right has an OR to say you cant heat or light your home? if they thought it was high they should have sought proof first not just reduced it, it just reaks of some over zelous newbie to me who is doing the job all wrong:rolleyes:

completely agree. To just reduce it is unbelievable.

wherediditallgo

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I would agree with you wherediditallgo if it was a small reduction but to cut someones GAS/ ELECTRIC from 120 to 50 is more than just 'cutting back a bit' in my view im afraid.

I know I couldn't cut mine back by 50%, but as Poppy pointed out, the costs per month did seem high. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong, just that if another poster can think they're high, it's not surprising the OR did too. They might allow more if someone is in the household is sick & needs the extra, but otherwise I think they'll expect people to find a cheaper supplier. If one can't be found then fair enough, but I think that's the OR's expectation. I'm not saying the OR's right in the OP's case, just that this would be their expectation.

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I hope you would agree we all would have to make some drastic life changes to cut our GAS/ ELECTRIC bills by over 50%

Us here, yes, because we know what it's like to be watching the pennies. But I know many people who leave lights/tvs on for hours on end when no-one's using them, leave the heat on the timer instead of only putting it on when they need it (resulting in it costing money when they go out for the night or are away for the weekend), use high wattage bulbs instead of low energy ones etc. I know someone who, even when shown by the uswitched site that they could be saving over £400 a year still hasn't done it because it seems like a lot of work to sort out. :rolleyes: Yes, they're heading for a fall if they don't wise up soon, but until then they'll carry on as they are.

Like I said before, OR's don't work with real-time experiences. They have a set of figures & work off those, & only those who are strong enough to appeal against the decision or who can put forward a good enough case in the first place seem to win with them.

I wonder if having a female OR might make a difference when it comes to dealing with BRs with young children - I'm not being sexist, but maybe they'd have more of an appreciation for how difficult it is to deal with the heat & light issues in these circumstances. The same might apply if a male OR who's been divorced has a divorced male client struggling to raise his children & work at the same time. They should be impartial, but I bet you get some who are either so impartial that they ridiculously & unfairly apply the figures/rules or are so sympathetic at the interview that it comes as a big shock to the BR when they end up with an IPA. At least people can contest the decision.