EDF Energy. A Cautionary Tale.

MickyLuv

Nada666 wrote: »

So you would rather not have any access to lighting or heat or hot water every time you move for several weeks?

If the energy supply is disconnected because that is the only alternative to paying for seven months of unwanted and unused energy, PLUS the standing charge for seven months of the same, then this has more to do with the inconveniences imposed by the energy companies in providing so few options in their attempt to exploit customers.

This unfortunate state of affairs being so, any potential new occupier of the premises would do well to ensure that the property is functional in this respect before they move in.
Not my concept of an ideal situation but it's the energy companies imposing this paltry range of options.

Nada666 wrote: »

This may be once in a blue moon for you but for renters or more frequent purchasers this would be a ridiculous annoyance. Will your employer allow you to stay off work for a week or two just because you are unwashed and are waiting for an engineer to turn things on? Do you really think paying for an engineer's visit to turn things off and paying for (and waiting for) an engineer to turn things on at the new place would be cheaper than standing charges/deemed tariff deltas? Deemed contracts are entirely sensible.

Not for me and numerous other customers suffering the effects and harassments associated with the avaricious practices of energy companies.

Nada666 wrote: »

And standing charges and tariff structures are not the remit of the ombudsman. Why would they?

Do you mean that because The Ombudsman Service play such cool music while they have you on hold, that they can deny responsibility for curtailing the avaricious excesses of the energy companies who they are paid to moderate? If so, I thinks you may well be right. That is, on the basis that Might is Right, so the energy companies are more than free to screw their customers.

societys_child

They don't charge for "unwanted and unused energy".

You didn't pay "the final bill", you still owned the property, you were still liable for the standing charges, stop trying to blame the energy company.

I know people who have switched to Ebico (as mentioned above by vuvuzela) to avoid this situation with the standing charge. Debt collectors only tend to get involved when you ignore the bills . . .

MickyLuv

societys_child wrote: »

They don't charge for "unwanted and unused energy".

Yes, that's exactly what they do. I have first hand experience of this and so do many other people. Do a Google search with "EDF", "complaint" and "LCS" as the search terms and educate yourself on the subject.

societys_child wrote: »

You still owned the property, you were still liable for the standing charges, stop trying to blame the energy company.

You are telling me that because I own property I am obliged to pay for services I neither want nor use? But of course! That is the very essence of my complaint.

I'm not TRYING to blame the energy companies. I AM blaming the energy companies.

societys_child wrote: »

I know people who have switched to Ebico (as mentioned above by vuvuzela) to avoid this situation with the standing charge. Debt collectors only tend to get involved when you ignore the bills . . .

Good old Ebico eh?
Debt collectors get involved before their victims are even aware of the bills in many cases. See my suggestion in this post for a Google search on the subject.

societys_child

You are telling me that because I own property I am obliged to pay for services I neither want nor use? But of course! That is the very essence of my complaint.

As explained earlier in the thread, if you didn't want to pay the standing charges (or move free-of-caharge to "good old" Ebico) you should have paid to have the meters removed and the services capped. Would have cost far more though . .

This thread is so stupid, it has to be a wind up.

MickyLuv

societys_child wrote: »

As explained earlier in the thread, if you didn't want to pay the standing charges (or move free-of-caharge to "good old" Ebico) you should have paid to have the meters removed and the services capped. Would have cost far more though . .

My main point, made in the original post of this thread is that energy companies are using most unusual terms and conditions to prevent customers from being able to terminate contracts, without another "deemed" contract immediately taking it's place.

It's a scam and a grossly unjust imposition as far as I'm concerned. This situation is made much worse due to the fact that the energy companies make no effort to inform customers of these novel terms and conditions which they have been allowed to introduce.

The Internet abounds with accounts of people who have been surprised, harassed, intimidated and penalised by these underhand practices.

Even the standard example complaint shown on the Energy Ombudsman website describes this exact situation.

Energy companies should be forced to make the situation clear to customers and offer alternative options to the imposition of these charges for unwanted and unused energy.

societys_child wrote: »

This thread is so stupid, it has to be a wind up.

Resorting to describing the thread as stupid when your argument is so poor is not unusual. Is this the best you can do? Who is forcing you to participate here?

admania

You owned the property regardless of where you went to, and as previously would have shown on your final bill, you were charged a daily standing charge.

Daily standing charges are paid by I would estimate around 99% of the population on their gas and electric accounts. You can argue that the daily standing charge is unfair a la tv license fees, phone line rental etc. The fact remains you owned the property and are liable for the charge like everyone else.

societys_child

You appear to be totally missing the point. Someone has to pay the standing charge, usually the owner. You own the property, your liable for the charges.

Don't blame the energy companys, blame the regulator, Ofgem. They forced it on the big 6, claiming it makes things simpler. Your rant should be at Ofgem . . .

Who should pay the standing charges for your property, if not you?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2504393/How-new-daily-energy-charges-cause-bills-double.html

Resorting to describing the thread as stupid when your argument is so poor is not unusual.

You're the one with the poor argument, did you not have to pay council tax?

MickyLuv

admania wrote: »

You owned the property regardless of where you went to, and as previously would have shown on your final bill, you were charged a daily standing charge.

Yes, I worked long and hard to own the property as most people do.
I also willingly paid standing charges for many years because I wanted and used the energy services.
When I neither wanted nor used the energy services, I continued to be charged for them because the energy companies can get away with it, not because it's reasonable. [/QUOTE]

admania wrote: »

Daily standing charges are paid by I would estimate around 99% of the population on their gas and electric accounts.

Yes, this may well be so. And rightly so, if they want and use these services.

admania wrote: »

You can argue that the daily standing charge is unfair a la tv license fees, phone line rental etc. The fact remains you owned the property and are liable for the charge like everyone else.

Thank you, I argue that the standing charge is unfair when the service is neither wanted or used. When I don't have a TV, I'm not forced to pay for a TV licence. When I don't have a phone I'm not obliged to pay a phone line rental.

Also, like everyone else I'm being robbed blind by corporate greed.
I reserve the right to complain about it, resist it and act to charge it in the best way I can.

MickyLuv

societys_child wrote: »

You appear to be totally missing the point.

Which particular point am I missing. Certainly not the point I'm making in this thread. You have a point of your own that I'm missing?

societys_child wrote: »

Someone has to pay the standing charge, usually the owner. You own the property, your liable for the charges.

Exactly, that's what I'm complaining about. Didn't I make that clear?

societys_child wrote: »

Don't blame the energy companys, blame the regulator, Ofgem.

I'm blaming the whole system which allows these robber barons to trample rough-shod over their customers and impose what are in many cases demands for money which people are increasingly unable to find.

societys_child wrote: »

They forced it on the big 6, claiming it makes things simpler. Your rant should be at Ofgem . . .

Excuse me but I consider that I'm making a calm and reasoned argument here. Who is ranting?

societys_child wrote: »

Who should pay the standing charges for your property, if not you?

Nobody should be forced to pay the standing charge if they do not want or use the service.

societys_child wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2504393/How-new-daily-energy-charges-cause-bills-double.html

You're the one with the poor argument, did you not have to pay council tax?

So because I paid council tax, which is another increasing burden that many people are struggling with, it follows that I have to pay the energy company for services I don't want?
If this is so, it's wrong and needs to be stopped.

societys_child

As said earlier, to avoid the standing charges you could have had the meters removed. Simple as that. You're just picking and choosing which questions you want to answer. I'm out . .