Ebico / SSE partnership has ended!

uk1

Xbigman wrote: »

Whether or not Ebico had an exclusive deal with SSE or not is a moot point. SSE are acting as if they did, Ebico directors clearly thought they didn't.

Whilst I agree this is an organisational mess from both sides I'm going with the money and switching both gas and Electric to RHE.




Darren

Contracts are clearly written and breaches of this type are rarely moot. Ebico has always described the arrangement with SSE as a partnership. Just because people break contracts it doesn't imply they do so innocently. The first notification from Ebico implied to me that they were breaking the partnership with SSE and forging a new one with RHE. That seemed pretty clear.

Patr100

footyguy wrote: »

Ebico does not supply any energy - it has no supply licence to legitimately do so.

Ebico is a white label supplier. i.e. it piggy-backs off another licenced supplier.

Ebico used to use SSE as it's supply partner, but as the title of this thread states, that partnership has ended.

Ebico now operates in partnership with RHE.


If you are supplied on the Equipower or Equigas tariff then you are supplied by SSE.

If you still wish to be supplied underan Ebico White Label tariff, you will need to switch. All new applications to Ebico will be supplied by RHE.

What makes you think SSE will price match the new Ebico/RHE tariffs? They were already more expensive (or put another way, the new Ebico RHE tariffs were cheaper) and you should have received notification from SSE already that the price is increasing from 28 April 2017. From my notifications, it appears the increase is in the range of 15-20% (and that's on top of the fact it was already about 5% more expensive than the new Ebico/RHE tariff)

Hope that helps clarify matters for you

I meant that SSE were matching Ebico Equi tariffs, and renaming Equi tariffs. ie in the letter "the tariff will stay the same". That does not mean it won't go up as there appears no guarantee of a fixed tariff- they only suggest there will continue to be no standing charge. As I said, I have got no letters or notifications from SEE of any price increases which you should know if you read this thread with the title you patronisingly repeat to me to state the obvious!

As for Ebico not directly supplying energy or being a white label. I know that. But I chose Ebico for their tariff offer at the time, not SSE which had their own tariffs. As Ebico are offering a good rate with RHE from my limited usage (for gas only) I am moving with them which you would also know if you had read my previous posting.

gtmsphotos

I got that same letter from SSE today! It is what made me search for this thread- trying to find out what's going on. Still clear as mud

jouef

uk1 wrote: »

So you dismiss that Ebico negotiated with RHE and was in breach of their contract with SSE.

From the information available to me, it is not axiomatic that either company is in breach. There may have been a break clause, mutual agreement or performance that discharged either party. They appear to disagree about the mechanism to respectively retain customers, not the circumstances of the change in partner. Do you have evidence to support your black-and-white position?

footyguy

Patr100 wrote: »

I meant that SSE were matching Ebico Equi tariffs, and renaming Equi tariffs. ie in the letter "the tariff will stay the same". That does not mean it won't go up as there appears no guarantee of a fixed tariff- they only suggest there will continue to be no standing charge. As I said, I have got no letters or notifications from SEE of any price increases which you should know if you read this thread with the title you patronisingly repeat to me to state the obvious!

As for Ebico not directly supplying energy or being a white label. I know that. But I chose Ebico for their tariff offer at the time, not SSE which had their own tariffs. As Ebico are offering a good rate with RHE from my limited usage (for gas only) I am moving with them which you would also know if you had read my previous posting.

I think we are probably broadly of a similar mind.

I did not intend my previous post to be in any way patronising, and I apologise if you took it that way.
What you did request was for someone "to help us get some clarity here" and that is all I was attempting to do.

However, to be clear, SSE are not matching any tariff; the Equipower & Equigas tariffs are, and always have been, supplied by SSE, albeit previously under the Ebico white label brand.

Now thet the Ebico partnership with SSE has ended, SSE are simply renaming as their own the existing tariffs, as the letter clearly says.

Equigas and Equipower tariffs (or whatever name SSE wish to call them) are no longer available to new applicants.

In regards to the price increase which you say you have not been notified of - please see the SSE URL I have previously posted to assist in such a situation.

uk1

jouef wrote: »

From the information available to me, it is not axiomatic that either company is in breach. There may have been a break clause, mutual agreement or performance that discharged either party. They appear to disagree about the mechanism to respectively retain customers, not the circumstances of the change in partner. Do you have evidence to support your black-and-white position?

What information is available to you that isn't available to me?

What cinformation do you have that there is a break clause?

jouef

uk1 wrote: »

What information is available to you that isn't available to me?

None. In particular, I see no evidence that Ebico breached any contract and I asked on what basis you state they have.

What cinformation do you have that there is a break clause?

None. Please note I said 'There MAY have been a break clause ...'

You appear to assume the Ebico-SSE partnership is contractual in itself and that Ebico is in breach. However they may have had a partnership based on unenforceable heads of agreement beneath which they entered contract(s) based on specific performance. This could have led Ebico to withdraw from the partnership following withdrawal, breach or failure on SSE's part. The point is, while neither company is giving the full story and conflicting information is emerging, we as consumers need accurate facts and knowledgeable advice to guide our actions. Speculation can help where there are gaps and should be clearly labelled as such.

uk1

jouef wrote: »

None. In particular, I see no evidence that Ebico breached any contract and I asked on what basis you state they have.

You say that you have seen no evidence that Ebico breached it's contrct. You have clearly missed SSE's statement that this was exactly what they had done. That is "evidence" even if you choose not to believe it.

SSE's legal department is probably many times the combined size of Ebico and RHE total employees. I doubt they tell lies or don't know what they are doing.

The chances are if they say that Ebico have breached the contract and Ebico says they haven't then SSE is probably the better bet if one simply uses one's common sense.

Xbigman

But SSE would say it was Ebico's fault, wouldn't they?




Darren

Anthorn

Xbigman wrote: »

But SSE would say it was Ebico's fault, wouldn't they?




Darren

Exactly and vice versa. That's why there's confusion. The consensus appears to be that it was Ebico who sent out the letter claiming price rises on the Equi tariffs but yesterday's letter sent by SSE doesn't mention price rises. Or was it SSE who sent the first letter and Ebico who sent the second letter and why is RHE silent and why are Range Eggs not free as is claimed on the retail pack?. etc. etc.