MSE News: Details of energy market review to be announced by the Government

LesU

So nobody wants the 2 week cooling off period anymore?
This was created and enforced by the watchdogs, not the energy companies. I don't recall being asked whether I wanted that period changed to 0 days cooling off.

Ryune

You might be able to cut it down to 2 weeks or so, however any shorter than that is asking for trouble. The process is more complicated than some people realise and thats why its not a quick thing - no amount of hot air from politicians will change that. it is possible to do it in a week (and I've had it done with business supplies when it was urgent that it transfered) however that is not the norm.


If Joe Blogs in Flat 1 accidentally switches Jim Bob's supply in Flat 2 then as things stand there's at least a few weeks to inform Jim that he's switching and for him to stop it. If it goes through in 24 hours then there's no time and you end up with an erroneous transfer mess to sort out (and its Jim's problem even though he has nothign to do with Joe).


The period exists both as a cooling off period for the customer, and as a safeguard against things going wrong by both parties. Scrapping it is unwise much as it may make for good headlines.

mailmannz

The real problem is that Ed Davey is part of the problem and the review will achieve absolutely nothing simply because its remit will NEVER look at the causes of increased energy prices.

The only way the Government could ever bring prices down in the real world is;

1. Change the remit of DECC to DEES (ie. Department of Energy and Energy Security who's sole responsility is energy security and cost reduction to consumers).
2. Pull back powers from the EU.
3. Repeal the Climate Change Bill.

The simple fact is Labour created the problems we have today by committing the UK to national suicide via the Climate Change Bill. As this country has committed itself to producing 80% of its energy by Windmills, mirrors and ground unicorn horn the price we pay for gas and electricity will continue to rise year on year.

Additionally, due to EU directives on coal powered power stations this country is bringing forward the closure of a number of power stations decades ahead of their original planned dates!

As the gap in capacity is supposedly being filled by renewables...which by the way has a guaranteed price which is significantly higher than power generated by Coal and Gas...your prices go up and there is nothing you can do about it!

Ed Davey is part of the problem and is whole hearted committed to killing as many in the UK as possible because they cannot afford to heat their homes in Winter. The sad fact is between the months of November and March every year in excess of 30,000 people in ENGLAND ALONE die from cold related illnesses. I guarantee you that not one single person will ever die from Mann Made Global Warming (tm) in this country...ever!

Rant over...thank you...that is all! :rotfl:

Regards

Mailman

Confused49

Ryune wrote: »

As some posts on this board show, not everyone wants that. Some people want standing charge tariffs, Some people want no standing charge tariffs as an example.

What's cheapest for one user isn't always for another.

No, that just adds to the confusion. The last thing the energy companies want is for every customer to be on the optimum tariff. The only reason for having tariffs that dont model the cost of supply is to trick and cheat customers into paying more than they could or take a gamble with the odds against them. The tariff should reflect the cost to the supplier and that means a standing charge for everybody and a cost for energy.

At best the supplier might argue that tariff choices give them some information to predict future demand, (as well as a hedge against inaccurate choices) although I doubt it is any more accurate than history of usage. Anyway, why not let the supplier use their own monitoring to predict future demand?

All customers want the tariff that costs least. Why don't the energy companies automatically do that? Because it is in their interest to offer alternatives that will seduce customers to pay more.

Ryune

Confused49 wrote: »

The tariff should reflect the cost to the supplier and that means a standing charge for everybody and a cost for energy.

Oh I'm fine with that, my point is that not everyone is. Some people want no standing charge tariffs due to very low usage (often on gas) and are not happy at Ofgem's insistance that they go away.

Suppliers are charged fixed costs by the distibution company per supply on a ppday basis and those need to be passed on somehow. No standing charge tariffs let some people dodge those charges (unless the usage on the NSC tariff is high enough to make back the costs due to the higher unit rate) which is arguably unfair.

Confused49 wrote: »

All customers want the tariff that costs least. Why don't the energy companies automatically do that?

Because the tariff that costs the least for you may not be the one that costs the least for me.

davidgmmafan

Coming soon, the next big scandal - energy companies slamming customers...

Actually this may not happen as the rules around selling are more strict. However I would personally prefer to have erroneous transfer speeded up.

IMO 24 hour switching can do more harm than good. Imagine a crossed MPAN or metering enquiry and the customer has changed 3 or 4 times just because they could. Nightmare.

The more pronouncements I hear from politicians on this the more I feel they have no idea. This is an area I know a little about. I shudder to think of the implications if they are this clueless in every area.

richardw

davidgmmafan wrote: »

...... Imagine a crossed MPAN or metering enquiry and the customer has changed 3 or 4 times just because they could. Nightmare.

All the big six need to do is set up a "switching reference agency" to keep a track of the 'unreasonable' switching individuals via a switching score system, but of course they need to keep this to themselves.

Pincher

With broadband, the engineer actually has to do a little work, like checking the signal levels, even if the master socket inside the house already exists. There is NOTHING to do physically to switch energy! It's all just admin.

What does it matter if they say it's all done two months later?
All I need to know is the new tariff starts from the day the meter reader comes, or right now if they trust my readings.

mailmannz

richardw wrote: »

All the big six need to do is set up a "switching reference agency" to keep a track of the 'unreasonable' switching individuals via a switching score system, but of course they need to keep this to themselves.

Sorry...but what is an unreasonable switcher? Someone who continually switches to get the best deals?

So what if someone switches regularly...sure that is there choice? If a company cannot keep a customer then so be it. It must be a persons RIGHT to switch when they want.

To me, limiting someons ability to switch though making the switching process difficult makes about as much sense as Red Ed Milliband saying people will be forced to use less energy because its going to cost them more!

Mailman

minislim

yet another pointless exercise. what good is speeding up switchovers going to achieve?

whats really needed is

1) a proper investigation into the way energy companies charge themselves for the wholesale energy they produce.

2) a simple and clear way to measure the amout of energy we use. (it was supposed to have been made simple but its still confusing for some.)

3) banning the practices of estimated billing and building up of credit on peoples account.