Octopus Tracker

MWT

tlcgrantham said:

Delighted as today my Gas Tracker V2 has been rolled over for another year just as my Go Faster was last July.

Great news! - Go Faster is definitely ending this year though, so don't bank on a repeat there...

Chrysalis

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

Loss leaders happen all the time in business.  If e.g. 1% customers being not profitable creates enough good publicity, then the profit from that good publicity could easily cancel out those losses.

In addition data is considered valuable, they have access to the data from all their customers energy use, I expect much more valuable when the customer has a smart meter, for this reason I am not surprised they made moves to limit the tracker tariffs to smart meter customers.

We also dont know what strategy has being agreed with the shareholders, but it is clear from the public statements of Octopus, they not just here to make money, but they see it as a priority to disrupt (modernise) the market.

masonic

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

[Deleted User]

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

masonic

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

Based on current wait times, I wouldn't be offered Tracker until at least October, while the best time to fix is likely to be months earlier. I'd be inclined to jump on a fix as soon as something remotely attractive materialises, given the ability to switch to track prices down, should they continue to fall. In the event a fix would see me paying through the nose vs a price-capped SVR that is fixed for 3 months, then that would be where I went if anywhere (but I'd need to be reasonably confident about what happens between Jan-Mar). I've never in the past been on a variable tariff during the winter months, so hopefully there will be options later this year.

I appreciate that there is no commitment to simply joining the wait list, but I can't envision any scenario where I'd take it up. I'll be moving to Agile when my current tariff expires, which, for the past month would have cost me 24p per day more than Tracker (£2 av. daily cost), and that's with relatively high usage between 4-7pm at least half of which I can load shift. So I shall get some feel for the situation when I start adapting my usage in the coming weeks.

bristolleedsfan

niktheguru said:

Chrysalis said:

Another difference between electric tracker and Agile, is the average unit rate for the day seems to be higher on Agile consistently.

So if you like the idea of using a tracker type tariff, but do not remove your usage away from an average usage pattern then tracker is probably the better tariff.

 but you can't get on tracker for 6 months. (Whether you're a new customer, existing customer or even if already a tracker customer with the other fuel)

A few customers elsewhere given the opposite answer last week, screenshot is reply a customer received.

warmy

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

Based on current wait times, I wouldn't be offered Tracker until at least October, while the best time to fix is likely to be months earlier. I'd be inclined to jump on a fix as soon as something remotely attractive materialises, given the ability to switch to track prices down, should they continue to fall. In the event a fix would see me paying through the nose vs a price-capped SVR that is fixed for 3 months, then that would be where I went if anywhere (but I'd need to be reasonably confident about what happens between Jan-Mar). I've never in the past been on a variable tariff during the winter months, so hopefully there will be options later this year.

I appreciate that there is no commitment to simply joining the wait list, but I can't envision any scenario where I'd take it up. I'll be moving to Agile when my current tariff expires, which, for the past month would have cost me 24p per day more than Tracker (£2 av. daily cost), and that's with relatively high usage between 4-7pm at least half of which I can load shift. So I shall get some feel for the situation when I start adapting my usage in the coming weeks.

my current tariff ends in a few days I’ve signed up for wait list for tracker electric I’m on tracker for gas already but while I wait I think I’ll move to agile .Do you have to be on agile for 30 days before you can switch to a different tariff?

masonic

warmy said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

Based on current wait times, I wouldn't be offered Tracker until at least October, while the best time to fix is likely to be months earlier. I'd be inclined to jump on a fix as soon as something remotely attractive materialises, given the ability to switch to track prices down, should they continue to fall. In the event a fix would see me paying through the nose vs a price-capped SVR that is fixed for 3 months, then that would be where I went if anywhere (but I'd need to be reasonably confident about what happens between Jan-Mar). I've never in the past been on a variable tariff during the winter months, so hopefully there will be options later this year.

I appreciate that there is no commitment to simply joining the wait list, but I can't envision any scenario where I'd take it up. I'll be moving to Agile when my current tariff expires, which, for the past month would have cost me 24p per day more than Tracker (£2 av. daily cost), and that's with relatively high usage between 4-7pm at least half of which I can load shift. So I shall get some feel for the situation when I start adapting my usage in the coming weeks.

my current tariff ends in a few days I’ve signed up for wait list for tracker electric I’m on tracker for gas already but while I wait I think I’ll move to agile .Do you have to be on agile for 30 days before you can switch to a different tariff?

You can leave Agile at any time. The 30 day restriction applies to moving back to a smart tariff (Agile, Go etc) after leaving one. There should be no issue moving from Agile to Tracker if BLF's screenshot applies to you and you find you can bypass the 6+ month queue.

warmy

masonic said:

warmy said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

Based on current wait times, I wouldn't be offered Tracker until at least October, while the best time to fix is likely to be months earlier. I'd be inclined to jump on a fix as soon as something remotely attractive materialises, given the ability to switch to track prices down, should they continue to fall. In the event a fix would see me paying through the nose vs a price-capped SVR that is fixed for 3 months, then that would be where I went if anywhere (but I'd need to be reasonably confident about what happens between Jan-Mar). I've never in the past been on a variable tariff during the winter months, so hopefully there will be options later this year.

I appreciate that there is no commitment to simply joining the wait list, but I can't envision any scenario where I'd take it up. I'll be moving to Agile when my current tariff expires, which, for the past month would have cost me 24p per day more than Tracker (£2 av. daily cost), and that's with relatively high usage between 4-7pm at least half of which I can load shift. So I shall get some feel for the situation when I start adapting my usage in the coming weeks.

my current tariff ends in a few days I’ve signed up for wait list for tracker electric I’m on tracker for gas already but while I wait I think I’ll move to agile .Do you have to be on agile for 30 days before you can switch to a different tariff?

You can leave Agile at any time. The 30 day restriction applies to moving back to a smart tariff (Agile, Go etc) after leaving one. There should be no issue moving from Agile to Tracker if BLF's screenshot applies to you and you find you can bypass the 6+ month queue.

Thanks for your reply 
Should I contact octopus directly if BLF’s screenshot applies to me and I can bypass the 6+ month queue and see what they say?

masonic

warmy said:

masonic said:

warmy said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

70sbudgie said:

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

The allegation that is being made is that Octopus is involved in a bait and switch campaign and has over the last number of weeks consistently published dishonest statements pushing people onto higher priced tariffs. This is automatically deemed unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act so any customer on the wait list would have a legal claim for the difference between the tariff they were unjustly denied and the one they have been put on in the interim, if they were lied to about the necessity of the wait list. It would also almost certainly be a breach of Ofgem regulations to engage in such a practice. No business run by sane people would do this (especially as it is their absolute right to withdraw a product from sale without giving a reason). I mainly posted it to illustrate how absurd it is to disbelieve point 1. But if someone does disbelieve it, it is serious enough that it shouldn't go unreported to the relevant authorities.

My existing tariff expires in a couple of weeks, and I won't be joining the wait list for Tracker. Not because I think there is anything nefarious going on, but because Tracker is not the tariff I would be willing to risk being on during the winter months.

Surely the only risk of being on Tracker is that you might miss out on what subsequently proves to be a good fixed deal. Switching tariffs is very easy with Octopus.

Based on current wait times, I wouldn't be offered Tracker until at least October, while the best time to fix is likely to be months earlier. I'd be inclined to jump on a fix as soon as something remotely attractive materialises, given the ability to switch to track prices down, should they continue to fall. In the event a fix would see me paying through the nose vs a price-capped SVR that is fixed for 3 months, then that would be where I went if anywhere (but I'd need to be reasonably confident about what happens between Jan-Mar). I've never in the past been on a variable tariff during the winter months, so hopefully there will be options later this year.

I appreciate that there is no commitment to simply joining the wait list, but I can't envision any scenario where I'd take it up. I'll be moving to Agile when my current tariff expires, which, for the past month would have cost me 24p per day more than Tracker (£2 av. daily cost), and that's with relatively high usage between 4-7pm at least half of which I can load shift. So I shall get some feel for the situation when I start adapting my usage in the coming weeks.

my current tariff ends in a few days I’ve signed up for wait list for tracker electric I’m on tracker for gas already but while I wait I think I’ll move to agile .Do you have to be on agile for 30 days before you can switch to a different tariff?

You can leave Agile at any time. The 30 day restriction applies to moving back to a smart tariff (Agile, Go etc) after leaving one. There should be no issue moving from Agile to Tracker if BLF's screenshot applies to you and you find you can bypass the 6+ month queue.

Thanks for your reply 
Should I contact octopus directly if BLF’s screenshot applies to me and I can bypass the 6+ month queue and see what they say?

If they are going to make statements like that, then they shouldn't be surprised if people in your position to do just that.