MSE News: Energy customers 'pay too much'

hanlou007

if people are too daft or lazy to look at changing to a cheaper tariff then , i'm sorry, but they deserve to get ripped off

just like people who got sold ppi , or those that dont read their T&C's...... these companies are not here to look after you , they are here to make money.

all we seem to do in this country is look after the lazy , stupid people and try and give them more money in their pockets.

:mad:

molerat

I do not know exactly how much gas I am going to use but I do know how much I am likely to use and how high my maximum and how low my minimum is likely to be. I put these figures into my spreadsheet and the comparison site of choice and I make an informed decision about whether to switch and who to ......... and maths has never been one of my strong points

stator

Sledgehead wrote: »

I have a similar problem with the number of sultanas in muesli. Cheaper often has less sultanas, so a straightforward cost comparison if really difficult. I did try separating the dried fruit from the nuts and oats two years ago. Boy was that an effort. Just when I thought I had the definitive information, the missus pointed out that some of the sultanas were in fact raisins. So I had to do it all again, and that's when I found that the quantity varies from bag to bag. Then there's the oaty dust levels. I want whole oats, not floor-sweepings. So after all that I was looking for something easy and worthwhile to do. So I went to a price comparison website and saved 200 quid on my energy bill. That done, i have no excuse but to knuckle under and sort out the muesli-sultana ratio .... wow do i wish they'd standardize it. And clothes too. I'm thinking we all wear khaki suits and flat caps. And songs - standardize those too. All we need is one. Now sing along, I'm sure you know the words :
"Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,...."

I read that whole post thinking you might eventually make some kind of point. I was disappointed.

Sledgehead

stator wrote: »

I read that whole post thinking you might eventually make some kind of point. I was disappointed.

I wrote that whole post for the benefit of others, not you. I already know what you are capable of.

canterswest

michaels wrote: »

Martin Lewis on the BBC has criticised the 'scandal' that it is OAPs who are least likely to have switched. Presumably he is equally unhappy that they may also pay over the odds for insurance, cars, phones, food etc.

I thought we used the tax and benefits system to acheive a just society, I did not realise that every supplier in every market should have inbuilt 'social' pricing. Should we have cheaper list prices for cars for the over 65s as they may be less good at bargaining discounts?

I heard ML on radio too. When MSE does collective switches are these only for direct debit or online customers? Double standards from ML if he is not doing something about helping society as he sees it with his own offers.
Listeners mainly disagreed with ML, a few said he was wrong. Advice from listeners for the elderly was to telephone your Big 6 supplier and ask which of their tariffs have lower KWh prices and ask to be put on that and they will switch you. I suppose check for any hidden extras too.

MillicentBystander

Sledgehead wrote: »

Economics 101 fail. Competition lowers prices, not government. The reason people don't switch is :

a ) because of people like you who claim the price comparison websites are out to rip customers off;

b ) because they really do not consider energy expensive. If they did, they'd soon be motivated to switch. Fact is people think 200 quid a piffling sum. Yep, they'll turn up to the sales to "save" 200 quid, but be honest: that is not about saving, it's about spending. People like sales, not because they like to save, but because they are consumerholics. And they moan about the price of essentials because it means less footie tickets and shoes, not because they want to put money aside for a rainy day.

And speaking of rainy days, we could have fatter pensions if it weren't for our obsession with bashing our home grown companies and instead wasting that money inflating the price our kids have to pay for housing.

As for a lack of competition. Yep, there is a massive lack. The big two have had it their way for far two long. The market is broken, as evidenced not just by people not switching, but by not voting at all. BREAK UP THE BIG TWO! (labour and conservatives).

Comprehension fail101. The point is, if it wasn't for nationalisation there wouldn't be any need for these parasitic switching sites. But now the monstrosity of putting such a basic human need as light and heat into the hands of the private sector is here (unfortunately) to stay, we get the added burden of industry-funded (by way of huge sweeteners) switching sites required due to the ridiculously complex array of different tariffs. It's confusion marketing at its finest and if you can't see the flaws in the present system I suggest you must derive your livelihood from it.

Sledgehead

hanlou007 wrote: »

all we seem to do in this country is look after the lazy , stupid people and try and give them more money in their pockets.

:mad:

Hard work and intelligence have long been crimes in this country. Luck, good looks, contacts, affability (tends to come from luck, laziness and good looks) and ignorance go a long way.

Most footballers were too stupid and lazy to bother studying at school. The consequence? A guy is so keen to reward these sorts that he declares he is willing to sell his kidney for match tickets. But amyloidosis remains incurable and I see nobody forming queues to donate to its research . And any researcher labouring for a cure would have to give away their work for fear of being accused of profiting from others misery. Go figure.

Sledgehead

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Comprehension fail101. The point is, if it wasn't for nationalisation there wouldn't be any need for these parasitic switching sites. .

Knowledge fail 101.

Go ask your parents how much they paid for heat and light as a percentage of their wages before it was privatised. You are living in a dreamworld if you imagine state run means good value. Just look at HMRC!


And by the way, nobody cares about this issue. 14:00 and just 28 posts. Many are from me. Most are from people who think those moaning about energy bills are just lazy. Only six posts from 3 people proffer the views espoused by you. You need to find another election issue.

Prewelli

Nada666 wrote: »

Ridiculous story.

Are Caroline Flint et al really wanting the price of cheapest tariffs to increase by £200 so lazy people can save £34 per year? What other result do they want?

It takes two minutes once every twelve or fifteen months to see what new fix to choose. Or you can do that every quarter if you like. Yes, you may have to take ten or fifteen minutes once or twice getting your head round what to do - but that is a once in a lifetime thing to learn.

And if choice is restricted even further those outside the average consumption will face even more disadvantage than under the current reforms.

I changed electricty suppliers as suggested by websites to First utility - got locked in for two years - now have to pay exit fee of 60 pounds to change- worst thing I ever did - they are useless at administration, bill is wring and you cany get hold of them on the hone. Martin lewis comments on radio were insulting snd condescing- yes it is easy to changebutnot easy to get out of once you have- he doesnt warn you- I am over 65 butnot stupid and now really angry. His advice is short erm and ill advised does not take account of peoles circumstances and can be dangerous.

canterswest

The CMA report shows more expensive as well as cheaper tariffs to SVRs. It is possible therefore that some consumers have switched from SVRs to more expensive tariffs. Is it political pressure for press headlines that has led the CMA to emphasise only half the story, the saving from switching?


As to why some consumers are on tariffs more expensive than SVRs, one theory is that switching sites have more commercial reason to say prices will go up. This works as a call to action. Do suppliers launch particularly expensive long term fixes at these times but then what happens is prices in fact settle or go down for a few years.
Looking at the CMA report, there are a few dates, like from August 2008 onwards, and from November 2013 onwards, when switching sites were loudly saying prices are going up but in fact they did not.
The question is, do the suppliers have more insight?