Energy news in general

pochase

I would say this depends how the pre-payment meter is charged. If somebody load s the key in a shop for sure there is additional cost involved, I doubt that the shop owner will do this without getting paid to do so.

The rate is already better than for people on credit meter not paying by direct debit. Standing charge compered to direct debit is a bit higher, but the unit rate is cheaper!



So in a month with 30 days a prepay customer pays £1.48 more, but a slightly cheaper unit rate. 

brewerdave

Mstty said:

brewerdave said:

tghe-retford said:savers_united said:

LADYXXMACBETH said:

I agree the 'hardworking families' shouldn't pay, but theyll pay anyway in their taxes if the government step in. 
Ultimately when people can't pay the customer will end up footing the bill anyway. People with nothing have no way of paying back debts, they have no assets so it can't be clawed back and putting in a prepayment meter won't help as many won't put any money on the meter. 
It's also slightly offensive to have people say that for some reason benefits claimants can't spend their money on what they like. If someone wants to get their nails done then that's their choice. I don't go around saying what a police officer can do with their wages because it's tax payers money that pays their wages. 

Via taxation is a fairer route rather than just hit those who are deemed to be ok, also that way those who earn more would pay more in theory.

I agree that no one should be told how they spend their money, benefits or no benefits, but if you do decide what little you have to spend it on nails etc, then there must be consequences to that decision if it means you do not have enough for the energy meter, it is all about priorities, you cannot expect everyone else to bail you out, If i did not pay the mortgage but instead took an extra few holidays each year the house would be taken from me. I know that so I keep up the repayments even if it means sacrificing other things. 

At least taxation has the ability to pay concept within, a social tariff has a harsh cut off whereby those on pensions and benefits will get help but anyone just above the cut off in a low paid job will get nothing other than a hike in their prices should the energy companies get their way and the cap is abolished.

Absolutely - the Government have already made an unfair decision with the £150 C/Tax rebate - eg 2 pensioners on fixed incomes in a band E+ house get nothing but 2 professionals ,both working ,in a band D property ,get a bung !!

However conversely a band E+ home is generally "substantial" and they have the option to downsize to fit their means.

I would have personally stopped it at Band C.

In my world a 3 bedroom semi is hardly substantial !! Also many older people are living in what was their family home, they have invested time and effort in the property and maybe garden. So they should be forced to downsize ?
The whole idea of basing an energy discount on the property owned is a nonsense -what's wrong with using the tax system ??

Mstty

@brewerdave

I will change substantial to valuable then as you are right not all band E are substantial (lots of 3 bedroom semis are) but are valued higher over the previous bands.

Unfortunately a lot of families (even with both parents working) as well as the elderly on pensions will have to make very very tough decisions and that may mean a downsize to continue quality of life. 

No one is forcing people it's a choice you make on income and expenditure and quality of life. 

Energy prices are rising and will continue to rise, the people that make these hard decisions early are the smart ones.

We've got our spreadsheet out, income and expenditure, what we can afford to do this year and what we now cannot do. We have also had the discussion should we sell whilst the market is high.

Anyone with a band E home has options, they won't be nice ones or ones they want to make but they will have options. Especially if elderly as that normally means no mortgage.

QrizB

brewerdave said:

In my world a 3 bedroom semi is hardly substantial !! Also many older people are living in what was their family home, they have invested time and effort in the property and maybe garden. So they should be forced to downsize ?

Yes.

There seems to be a subset of the population who somehow think that housing is a special type of asset that should be protected.

Would you have written:

"Many older people have invested time and effort in their share portfolio and yacht, should they be forced to downsize?"

savers_united

brewerdave said:

Mstty said:

brewerdave said:

tghe-retford said:savers_united said:

LADYXXMACBETH said:

I agree the 'hardworking families' shouldn't pay, but theyll pay anyway in their taxes if the government step in. 
Ultimately when people can't pay the customer will end up footing the bill anyway. People with nothing have no way of paying back debts, they have no assets so it can't be clawed back and putting in a prepayment meter won't help as many won't put any money on the meter. 
It's also slightly offensive to have people say that for some reason benefits claimants can't spend their money on what they like. If someone wants to get their nails done then that's their choice. I don't go around saying what a police officer can do with their wages because it's tax payers money that pays their wages. 

Via taxation is a fairer route rather than just hit those who are deemed to be ok, also that way those who earn more would pay more in theory.

I agree that no one should be told how they spend their money, benefits or no benefits, but if you do decide what little you have to spend it on nails etc, then there must be consequences to that decision if it means you do not have enough for the energy meter, it is all about priorities, you cannot expect everyone else to bail you out, If i did not pay the mortgage but instead took an extra few holidays each year the house would be taken from me. I know that so I keep up the repayments even if it means sacrificing other things. 

At least taxation has the ability to pay concept within, a social tariff has a harsh cut off whereby those on pensions and benefits will get help but anyone just above the cut off in a low paid job will get nothing other than a hike in their prices should the energy companies get their way and the cap is abolished.

Absolutely - the Government have already made an unfair decision with the £150 C/Tax rebate - eg 2 pensioners on fixed incomes in a band E+ house get nothing but 2 professionals ,both working ,in a band D property ,get a bung !!

However conversely a band E+ home is generally "substantial" and they have the option to downsize to fit their means.

I would have personally stopped it at Band C.

In my world a 3 bedroom semi is hardly substantial !! Also many older people are living in what was their family home, they have invested time and effort in the property and maybe garden. So they should be forced to downsize ?
The whole idea of basing an energy discount on the property owned is a nonsense -what's wrong with using the tax system ??

This is a debate that could go and go, I have the same thoughts about the winter fuel allowance. All elderly receive it regardless of income, assets, investments etc. Other neighbours across the road are in their 70s, plenty of money, taking cruises 3 times a year, 21 plate car. He tells me the £300 he gets is used to service the car annually. Openly admits he does not need the money.

Why can't those worst off get double and take from those who do not need it. 
I was told it was more admin work and would end up costing more overall, guess same argument for the band A-D decision rather than based on individual circumstances. 

Zandoni

savers_united said:

brewerdave said:

Mstty said:

brewerdave said:

tghe-retford said:savers_united said:

LADYXXMACBETH said:

I agree the 'hardworking families' shouldn't pay, but theyll pay anyway in their taxes if the government step in. 
Ultimately when people can't pay the customer will end up footing the bill anyway. People with nothing have no way of paying back debts, they have no assets so it can't be clawed back and putting in a prepayment meter won't help as many won't put any money on the meter. 
It's also slightly offensive to have people say that for some reason benefits claimants can't spend their money on what they like. If someone wants to get their nails done then that's their choice. I don't go around saying what a police officer can do with their wages because it's tax payers money that pays their wages. 

Via taxation is a fairer route rather than just hit those who are deemed to be ok, also that way those who earn more would pay more in theory.

I agree that no one should be told how they spend their money, benefits or no benefits, but if you do decide what little you have to spend it on nails etc, then there must be consequences to that decision if it means you do not have enough for the energy meter, it is all about priorities, you cannot expect everyone else to bail you out, If i did not pay the mortgage but instead took an extra few holidays each year the house would be taken from me. I know that so I keep up the repayments even if it means sacrificing other things. 

At least taxation has the ability to pay concept within, a social tariff has a harsh cut off whereby those on pensions and benefits will get help but anyone just above the cut off in a low paid job will get nothing other than a hike in their prices should the energy companies get their way and the cap is abolished.

Absolutely - the Government have already made an unfair decision with the £150 C/Tax rebate - eg 2 pensioners on fixed incomes in a band E+ house get nothing but 2 professionals ,both working ,in a band D property ,get a bung !!

However conversely a band E+ home is generally "substantial" and they have the option to downsize to fit their means.

I would have personally stopped it at Band C.

In my world a 3 bedroom semi is hardly substantial !! Also many older people are living in what was their family home, they have invested time and effort in the property and maybe garden. So they should be forced to downsize ?
The whole idea of basing an energy discount on the property owned is a nonsense -what's wrong with using the tax system ??

This is a debate that could go and go, I have the same thoughts about the winter fuel allowance. All elderly receive it regardless of income, assets, investments etc. Other neighbours across the road are in their 70s, plenty of money, taking cruises 3 times a year, 21 plate car. He tells me the £300 he gets is used to service the car annually. Openly admits he does not need the money.

Why can't those worst off get double and take from those who do not need it. 
I was told it was more admin work and would end up costing more overall, guess same argument for the band A-D decision rather than based on individual circumstances. 

I consider the winter fuel allowance as part of the state pension and therefore everyone on pensionable age should get it, regardless of their financial situation.

Xbigman

This is a debate that could go and go, I have the same thoughts about the winter fuel allowance. All elderly receive it regardless of income, assets, investments etc. Other neighbours across the road are in their 70s, plenty of money, taking cruises 3 times a year, 21 plate car. He tells me the £300 he gets is used to service the car annually. Openly admits he does not need the money.

Why can't those worst off get double and take from those who do not need it. 
I was told it was more admin work and would end up costing more overall, guess same argument for the band A-D decision rather than based on individual circumstances. 

What you are proposing is that everything becomes means tested. Claiming anything that is means tested is intrusive and time consuming from a personal as well as an admin perspective. Many of those elderly who would be entitled won't claim because they see it as scrounging or too intrusive. Means tested benefits are not the answer to everything. A hybrid system with some automatic payments and some means tested is the fairest in the real world. 

Whilst you mention neighbours. I have neighbours where both parents and one child all work full time. They live in an extended end terrace that is band E. They are total energy wasters. They have a security light that, should a cat walk in front of it at night, is like the sun rising. They are complaining bitterly about not getting the £150 and are going to make a hardship claim and try to get it anyway. I have an income that is about £3 pm above single persons UC plus a small pension pot to draw down on occasionally. I don't drink, don't smoke, don't drive, don't watch live TV. I live very frugally. I don't NEED the £150. Compared to me, are they more deserving? They would say they are.


Darren

Ultrasonic

Xbigman said:

This is a debate that could go and go, I have the same thoughts about the winter fuel allowance. All elderly receive it regardless of income, assets, investments etc. Other neighbours across the road are in their 70s, plenty of money, taking cruises 3 times a year, 21 plate car. He tells me the £300 he gets is used to service the car annually. Openly admits he does not need the money.

Why can't those worst off get double and take from those who do not need it. 
I was told it was more admin work and would end up costing more overall, guess same argument for the band A-D decision rather than based on individual circumstances. 

What you are proposing is that everything becomes means tested. Claiming anything that is means tested is intrusive and time consuming from a personal as well as an admin perspective. Many of those elderly who would be entitled won't claim because they see it as scrounging or too intrusive. Means tested benefits are not the answer to everything. A hybrid system with some automatic payments and some means tested is the fairest in the real world. 

Whilst you mention neighbours. I have neighbours where both parents and one child all work full time. They live in an extended end terrace that is band E. They are total energy wasters. They have a security light that, should a cat walk in front of it at night, is like the sun rising. They are complaining bitterly about not getting the £150 and are going to make a hardship claim and try to get it anyway. I have an income that is about £3 pm above single persons UC plus a small pension pot to draw down on occasionally. I don't drink, don't smoke, don't drive, don't watch live TV. I live very frugally. I don't NEED the £150. Compared to me, are they more deserving? They would say they are.


Darren

Your second paragraph is rather a demonstration of why means testing is needed IMHO.

LADYXXMACBETH

Well I don't pay council tax because Im a single parent on benefits. Yes I get that I'm already 1700 pounds a year "better off" but it does nothing to my energy bill. 
I won't see £150 off my bill I will be paying £150 more than the neighbour is paying. 
My income hasn't magically risen since last year, and I didn't manage to get the warm homes discount either. It's a bit of a lottery to say the least. 

QrizB

LADYXXMACBETH said:

I won't see £150 off my bill I will be paying £150 more than the neighbour is paying.

Is your house Band E and your neighbour's Band D? Or is your neighbour disabled and so counts as Band D despite his house also being Band E?

I can't think of any other simple reason for your neighbour to get the £150 but you not.

If you're basing your statement on not paying Council Tax, that does not in itself disqualify you from the payment.