MSE Energy SPAM and LIES

LeesArt

singhini wrote: »

I wish not to disappoint but I don't think the OP will be returning (logic would dictate that if the person is so unhappy they surely would have stopped all communications from MSE and deleted their account with them).


I hope I am wrong, as I'm interested to see the original source of the quote in post #1 where it states "blah blah blah" (for it to be a quote it most surely come directly from an original source)?

Sorry to disappoint but I am not going anywhere.

When I see an organisation in the wrong I stand up and challenge them to their face.

I do this to give them a chance to explain.

I do not rely on the comments of others, I would not have made the post if I did not have the facts.

The blah blah was for your benefit, the key parts Ihad a problem with are quoted along with the contradicting terms of the offer from the newsletter that was the same thing the email was promoting.

It is only by pointing out this bad behaviour that it keeps a company in line.

Hopefully avoiding reporting.

LeesArt

Xbigman wrote: »

If you sign up for alerts for ANY savings I don't think you can call it spam when you get a lot of alerts for minimal or non existent savings.
Likewise the definition of savings is legally required by OfGem to be calculated a certain way. So if you see a headline saying you can save £320 a year, but you already save £330 over standard tariffs then that tariff is £10 dearer but it does not legally invalidate the £320 statement.

Energy comparisons are a right old game. Learn the rules and calm down.

Darren

Thanks for your considered reply, the thing is there is no saving, it is a negative, so not a saving at all.

The whole point of the energy club is that you put your supplier and tariff in and it tells you (subject to your settings) when you can pay less than you are paying.

Previously I had it set to send me details of any offer, but it was too much so I set it to only email me when I could save.

Considering I have taken the time to enter my data it knows what I am paying and after the hassle of logging it clearly shows that it DOES know. So it should not have sent the message.

Drilling down I then found the lies.

Maybe you are right it is a game, but companies that make money promoting offers have duty of care not to mislead or downright lie, just to make a commission.

System

They are following the rules set by the Regulator which is a non Ministerial Government Department. that said, I agree that the assumptions that underpin the savings are flawed for consumers on fixed price tariffs with less than 12 months to run.

I took a promoter of a collective switch to the ASA last year as they were promoting their switch by saying that Miss A saved £379 on her energy bill a year ago, and would do the same again this year if she switched again. The ASA responded by saying that if the savings followed Ofgem guidelines then there was nothing that they could do about it.

LeesArt

Thanks Hengus, that is crazy!

In this situation there are two misleading aspects of the suggestion of no exit fees.

One is the exit fees that you refer to for clients on fixed term tariffs.

However, the 2 year deal promoted also has the exit fees referred to in my OP.

I can see how they could be confused by the case you referred to the ASA as it was subjective, (if Miss A's deal was coming to an end would she revert to a standard tariff and so then be able to make the suggested savings.

Regardless of OFGEM rules there are general ASA rules about misleading, particularly when the very thing you use to promote the deal (no exit fees) are the opposite of what has been suggested.

System

LeesArt wrote: »

Thanks Hengus, that is crazy!

In this situation there are two misleading aspects of the suggestion of no exit fees.

One is the exit fees that you refer to for clients on fixed term tariffs.

However, the 2 year deal promoted also has the exit fees referred to in my OP.

I can see how they could be confused by the case you referred to the ASA as it was subjective, (if Miss A's deal was coming to an end would she revert to a standard tariff and so then be able to make the suggested savings.

Regardless of OFGEM rules there are general ASA rules about misleading, particularly when the very thing you use to promote the deal (no exit fees) are the opposite of what has been suggested.

The argument is that PCWs are just using the rolling 12 months cost projection as prescribed THEN by Ofgem. I believe that following an Ofgem review late last year that PCWs can now use different methods of savings calculations provided they are used consistently across the website. For example, MSE CEC now uses the 'cost of present tariff for 12 months' compared to 'costs for 12 months on these tariffs' alongside the Ofgem methodology. That said, it would seem that the messages sent out by MSE CEC use the old Ofgem cost method. I confess that I get these messages from time-to-time and I just ignore them.

Cardew

If you consider the CEC so shocking that you are prepared to devote so much time and effort in bringing them to task, why not get your teeth into this organisation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5141494

Now they really deserve large red text!