People's Energy - next to go?

System

wavelets wrote: »

Which Consumer Levy are you referring to?

"Investment" is defined as follows by MSE

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/investment-beginners/

The Ofgem Safety Net introduced in October 2016 - now quoted by many as the Consumer Levy - protects credit balances in the event of a supplier failure. During its start up phase, PE was encouraging investors to pledge amounts of money which, if I recall, would be repaid by cheaper energy.

wavelets

Hengus wrote: »

The Ofgem Safety Net introduced in October 2016 - now quoted by many as the Consumer Levy - protects credit balances in the event of a supplier failure. ...

So it doesn't cover investments?

I can hear Peter Jones, Deborah Meaden, Toucker Suleyman, et al crying into their bulging bank accounts from here!

Sony Pictures Television have, however, given a huge sigh of relief that their investment will still provide a return, and Evan Davis still has a job.

:cool:

Anthorn

Scott787 wrote: »

It seems the Companies Registrar is planning to strike them off the register due to non-filing of statutory accounts.

The company numbers are SC522897 and 09844617.

I'm wondering why my old supplier hasn't closed my account 3 weeks after I moved to PE.

I hope it's not because they're knackered.

Depends on who the energy supplier is. In it's "Goodbye Cycle" which is added to an account when a customer is switching away, Scottish Power quotes a total of 12 weeks: 3 weeks to switch, a further 6 weeks to produce the final bill and a further 3 weeks to close the account.

System

wavelets wrote: »

So it doesn't cover investments?

I can hear Peter Jones, Deborah Meaden, Toucker Suleyman, et al crying into their bulging bank accounts from here!

Sony Pictures Television have, however, given a huge sigh of relief that their investment will still provide a return, and Evan Davis still has a job.

:cool:

Those who crowdfunded may hope that they have some protection.

Quote: On 31st July 2017 we successfully raised £487,815 with 2059 supporters in 199 days Unquote


Quote: £900 or more

Free energy for ONE Year will be applied to your monthly bill when we have 20000 live customers

Unquote

They had 10k customers in Jul 18. Could be expensive for some if PE does go bust.

wavelets

wavelets wrote: »

....
What does the
THE PEOPLE'S ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED
Company number SC522897
relate to?

Found them.

This company (registered in Scotland) appears simply to the sole shareholder of the supplier.

I would speculate that it was used up to purchase all the shares from the previous sole shareholder, Utiliteam (GB): Ltd, which was the company that originally set up the supplier.

Utiliteam (GB): Ltd is 100% owned by an individual; that individual was once an officer of the supplier company, but resigned that role in March 2017.

As he was replaced by a new officer, who claims to be the co-founder (with another who joined in June 2017) of the supply company, I would speculate further that the co-founders simply bought an established company "off the shelf" as opposed to starting a new one, using this Scottish registered company.

The current status (financial or otherwise) of a shareholder does not usually affect the ongoing viabilty of the company their money was invested in.

If I am correct, then the purpose of the Scottish company would now seem complete.
(assuming there is a new shareholder(s) )

wavelets

Hengus wrote: »

Those who crowdfunded may hope that they have some protection....

I fear they will have to carry on hoping ...

The consumer levy was not intended for (and I am sure will not) cover investments gone bad.

It only covers the hard earned cash of consumers given in good faith to energy suppliers for energy they have not yet consumed.

It only applies to consumer's cash, and where a SoLR does not waive their possibility on calling on such a levy as part of their bid to become the SoLR.

It does not cover, as an example of arguably a higher right, any goodwill money a supplier is ordered to pay a consumer by the ombudsman before they failed.

As I said according to MSE, an investment carries risk - that is the risk the investor takes on for a possible high reward. If an investment goes bad, that is the risk the investor took on when they decided to invest their money.

A SoLR bid may include upholding the right to free or cheaper energy to those customers involved, or may not - the supplier submits the details of what they are offering, and Ofgem selects the best offer for all concerned.

"The Ofgem Safety Net introduced in October 2016 - now quoted by many as the Consumer Levy - protects credit balances in the event of a supplier failure. " - as you said

Have you ever considered why Peter Jones et all have never said they would offer all, or even some of the money, for zero percent of the company?
PE only has one shareholder at present - the Scottish company I referred to above.

antrobus

Hengus wrote: »

Those who crowdfunded may hope that they have some protection. ...

They might well hope.:)

The way that the 'Safety Net/Consumer Levy' works is that the supplier of last resort, who takes over the customer accounts, assumes liability for the credit balances, and then recovers the cost from all the other suppliers.

The supplier of last resort doesn't assume liability for anything else, certainly not the £487,815 liability to the crowdfunders, nor the free electricity promised to them.

Hengus wrote: »

Could be expensive for some if PE does go bust.

The crowdfunders will lose their £487,815 and kiss their free electricity goodbye.

Berkshire_Beancounter

Hengus wrote: »

Those who crowdfunded may hope that they have some protection.

Quote: On 31st July 2017 we successfully raised £487,815 with 2059 supporters in 199 days Unquote


Quote: £900 or more

Free energy for ONE Year will be applied to your monthly bill when we have 20000 live customers

Unquote

They had 10k customers in Jul 18. Could be expensive for some if PE does go bust.

Indeed...I could see over 40 people had crowdfunded £1,500 each, with the hope of getting two year's energy. At least eight people stumped up £5,000 each for seven year's energy, and one person parted with £10,000 for fifteen years of free energy. A lot of people donated small amounts to this project with no reward, so it would be interesting to see if protection would apply. As the benefit would be added as a credit to the donator's account (once 20k customers reached, provided the donator remained a customer) I'm guessing it's not like the donation is already showing as a prepayment on their energy account. If I was a customer with them I wouldn't bank on getting my money back in the event People's Energy did go under.

newmover

antrobus wrote: »

Companies House says;

Next accounts made up to 31 December 2017 due by 30 September 2018

So the accounts are late. Hence the First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off. This is what is commonly known as a kick up the harris.

Curiously enough their website (see the Full Monty) publishes the minutes of their Advisory Board meetings. The minutes for 20 August 2018 state;

Our appointed accountants, Johnston Carmichael, are currently working through our accounts, to be able to post our financial accounts by end of October 2018.

At which point, had I been present at the meeting, I'd have piped up to say something like, 'oi, you stupid twonks, they're due by the end of September, get those ****** accountants to get a ****** move on'.

Major administrative incompetence.

The same minutes also say that;

our hedging strategy and partnership with a large wholesaler, means that we are secure for the winter months, as we have agreed the purchasing price for the energy needed for our customers right into Q2 of 2019.

Which should at least provide some reassurance.

That doesn't guarantee that they won't go pop of course.

"major administrative incompetence"

Do behave, it's a minor oversight and tens of thousands of companies have gone through it.

antrobus

newmover wrote: »

"major administrative incompetence"

Do behave, it's a minor oversight and tens of thousands of companies have gone through it.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I think that any company that plans to submit its accounts a month late is run by twonks.

And I'm speaking as someone who used to have the responsibility for getting company accounts done, dusted, and audited. If I'd have failed to meet the CH deadline, I'd have been sacked and rightly so.