PfP Energy ceases trading - here's everything you need to know

[Deleted User]

People who post must expect some pushback when they offer a counter view. If consumers want the same level of protection as they enjoy with many financial products etc, then they must accept many fewer suppliers and limited ( and much more expensive) tariffs. 

I return to the point that has got my friend so agitated? If compensation is to be paid when a supplier fails, and tariff protection is to be guaranteed, then who is going to pay for it? 

Verdigris

I just accept that by seeking the lowest price there is a proportionately higher risk. As tariff prices are based on predicting future wholesale prices, the cheaper retail offering is bound to come unstuck more often.

Over the years, several of my suppliers have gone bust. Most of them after I'd left and settled my account. YE was a close run thing, I'd left but had to wait for SP to pay back my credit. PfP is the first where the supplier has ceased to trade before my contract had finished. I'm 52p in debit, to PfP, plus the balance of the last last month, so I've nothing to lose.

lisyloo

QrizB said:

darrenjuggins2 said:

I’ll remember to jump on and gloat when you’re energy company takes a dump dolor…. I’ve tagged you down, be seeing you….

I'm sure Dolor is quaking in his boots.
Maybe you'd like to read the forum rules before posting again, in particular the one headed "Always be friendly".

Is it friendly calling it a bad decision.
Without a crystal ball how is anyone meant to know which energy companies will go bust?
Yes of course you can be ultra risk averse at a cost - that doesn't make it a bad decision.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what the arguments are for saying going with PFP was a bad decision (without the benefit of hindsight).
Anyone genuinely wanting to help should provide this information to help other money savers.

personally I don't think it's possible to know beyond saying small, cut price companies may be more likely in general.

[Deleted User]

lisyloo said:

QrizB said:

darrenjuggins2 said:

I’ll remember to jump on and gloat when you’re energy company takes a dump dolor…. I’ve tagged you down, be seeing you….

I'm sure Dolor is quaking in his boots.
Maybe you'd like to read the forum rules before posting again, in particular the one headed "Always be friendly".

Is it friendly calling it a bad decision.
Without a crystal ball how is anyone meant to know which energy companies will go bust?
Yes of course you can be ultra risk averse at a cost - that doesn't make it a bad decision.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what the arguments are for saying going with PFP was a bad decision (without the benefit of hindsight).
Anyone genuinely wanting to help should provide this information to help other money savers.

personally I don't think it's possible to know beyond saying small, cut price companies may be more likely in general.

A decision is something that we all reach after taking a number of factors into account. I might decide to take a short cut through Town only to find that there has been an accident on my chosen route. With hindsight, I would consider that to have been a bad decision.

I could list a number of suppliers that I wouldn’t consider switching my supply to. I am sure that others could do the same. The danger of doing so publicly is two fold: people might leave in droves and the very thing that they fear would happen, or I might get sued for defamation. If I choose an energy supplier that goes bust then I will kick myself for my bad decision. I would not expect others to compensate me in anyway.

lisyloo

Dolor said:

lisyloo said:

QrizB said:

darrenjuggins2 said:

I’ll remember to jump on and gloat when you’re energy company takes a dump dolor…. I’ve tagged you down, be seeing you….

I'm sure Dolor is quaking in his boots.
Maybe you'd like to read the forum rules before posting again, in particular the one headed "Always be friendly".

Is it friendly calling it a bad decision.
Without a crystal ball how is anyone meant to know which energy companies will go bust?
Yes of course you can be ultra risk averse at a cost - that doesn't make it a bad decision.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what the arguments are for saying going with PFP was a bad decision (without the benefit of hindsight).
Anyone genuinely wanting to help should provide this information to help other money savers.

personally I don't think it's possible to know beyond saying small, cut price companies may be more likely in general.

A decision is something that we all reach after taking a number of factors into account. I might decide to take a short cut through Town only to find that their has been an accident on my chosen route. With hindsight, I would consider that to have been a bad decision.

I could list a number of suppliers that I wouldn’t consider switching my supply to. I am sure that others could do the same. The danger of doing so publicly is two fold: people might leave in droves and the very thing that they fear would happen, or I might get sued for defamation. If I choose an energy supplier that goes bust then I will kick myself for my bad decision. I would not expect others to compensate me in anyway.

I don't agree with your conclusion.
It wasn't a bad decision (the shortcut) at the time as you could not have known about the accident or possibly even any higher chance of one.

I don't expect compensation but I disagree with you that it's a bad decision in cases where there is no way of knowing.
If there was information available and people "didn't do their research" then that could be considered a bad decision, but if it's just something that couldn't have been known about in advance then it's not a bad decision.

I understand your point about defamation but if you wished to help other money savers you could speak in general terms e.g. capital requirements on such & such a website or whatever, you don't have to name names to coach people in doing the research,

bagand96

darrenjuggins2 said:

Dolor said:

darrenjuggins2 said:

Morning,

the biggest frustration I have with all this, is this will be the second time in less than a year I have been rudely kicked off a deal and thrown back facing the newest price hikes.

firstly with YE to which I’d still be in a deal to Scottish power and now from pfp energy to BG.

instead of having great deals fixed, all I’ve ended up with is taking a hit in the two latest price hikes.

it’s about time, there was some compensation or at least a continuous of existing tariffs until the expire.

at this rate it will be the big six that are left, what’s the point in having these smaller suppliers if all that happens is they go but before seeing out a contract.

im well and truly peeved that through not fault of my own I will be paying several hundreds of £’s more from my energy through no fault of my own apart from using the energy market as we’ve been asked too.

a very poor performance by ofgem and the issuing of licences to companies Ill placed to operate them….

if the move from YE to SP is anything to go by I might be moved over before Xmas 🤶.

ranty, rant over with…..

I am sorry but when you buy a product at a cheap price then you must take any consequences for the poor decision if the supplier goes bust.  Compensation: who would pay it? Protection of your existing tariff: again who would pay for it given the most likely reason that the supplier went bust was because it was offering tariffs that were making it a loss. The SoLR is not going to offer tariff protection in a rapidly rising wholesale market unless it can reclaim the cost of doing so.

Energy consumers are already paying a levy on their bills to pay off the credit balances of failed suppliers. The money for this doesn’t come from the failed supplier. Are you really suggesting that I and others should pay more on our bills because you have made a poor decision and have chosen a supplier that has run out of cash just because you are ‘well and truly peeved’? Rant over.

PS There is though a simple solution. All energy suppliers should pay into an insurance scheme from which the total cost of a supplier failure would be covered. That said, I expect that the premium would be very high for new entrants which, in turn, would increase the cost of energy and reduce the number of new suppliers.

Well Dolor,

thanks for your reply….

The thing is, if this was a bank that got into trouble, then the contracts would be taken over and continue.

When someone gets a licence for any activity, such as providing energy, bank services, etc then you expect them to be actually able to provide the service..

All well and good preaching from a view point of I’m alright jack, like you’ve chosen to, but there is nothing wrong with my decision making regarding the suppliers I and many other chose, so if you’ve just jump on the thread to gloat, I suggest you’ve had your gloat, now disappear again unless you’ve got anything productive to say.

it seems to easy for suppliers to offer a service, not fulfil it and then have another bail the situation out, leaving consumers in the current situation.

I’ll remember to jump on and gloat when you’re energy company takes a dump dolor…. I’ve tagged you down, be seeing you….

It's very easy to bemoan Ofgem (and any regulator in any industry) but they do have a hard job and they must try and strike the right balance, which is never perfect. 

Ofgem recently made the entry requirements to the energy supply market more stringent. They could of course keep making it more stringent, but eventually theid just get accused of "making entry into the market too difficult" and "protecting the big 6".  Can't have it both ways. 

I too was with Yorkshire Energy.... I joined PFP and thought to myself "wonded how long this one will last". The answer was only one bill cycle!

At least in energy your credit balance is protected and you'll get it back. In a lot of  other industries any money you had tied up would disappear as soon as administration is announced. 

fly-catchers

After cancelling my DD with PFP as I noticed other people have. I got an email from them today asking for me to reinstate it. As I always end up making the wrong decision do I ignore the Mail. Or reinstate? But as they have gone bust, have a large credit with them and BG are taking over can’t see the point!

Verdigris

That's interesting about the DD. I take that to mean they intend to take/make payments. On the other hand, can an insolvent company do that?

MWT

I wouldn't over-think this, the computers are still running and there will be a few key staff remaining to assist the administrators and the SoLR transfer process.

Cancelling  the DD will still trigger automated reactions, it just adds a little complication to sorting out your account with BG and may cause BG to initially put you on a different tariff if they believe you do not have a DD in place.

Wilt

lisyloo said:

I don't agree with your conclusion.
It wasn't a bad decision (the shortcut) at the time as you could not have known about the accident or possibly even any higher chance of one.

I don't expect compensation but I disagree with you that it's a bad decision in cases where there is no way of knowing.
If there was information available and people "didn't do their research" then that could be considered a bad decision, but if it's just something that couldn't have been known about in advance then it's not a bad decision.

I disagree with that - a bad decision is just that, it makes no judgement on the reasons why a decision was made. The decision was made, the outcome of it was bad. Pretty simple equation.

Lets be real here, the reason people switched to PfP, or any of the other suppliers that have gone bust, is because when they did their energy comparisons these firms where somewhere near the top on the comparison sites. 

Perfectly within their rights to do that, but it needs to be recognised that with choosing cheaper prices comes additional risk of the firm folding. If as a consumer you want to reduce that risk then choose a more expensive tariff from one of the more established firms. 

The SoLR scheme is already quite a good scheme with credit balances protected and energy to homes not physically being switched off - expecting additional compensation because the unsustainably cheap tariff that the bust firm was offering is stopped early is pretty unreasonable.