Millions of taxpayers cash to keep Bulb going

oliverbrown

emmajones1976 said:

I dont dispute your statement. It was more the suggestion or inference it could be used as a blunt instrument to cut off over 3m people in 1.7m households from their gas and electric supply through no fault of their own.

Don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that it is easier to cut peoples' supplies off remotely via smart meter than "go round" (as you put it) to disconnect traditional meters.

Rich2808

emmajones1976 said:

oliverbrown said:

emmajones1976 said:

So your theory is that they would do that to 1.7m people, most of which would have paid their bills on time, if the worst came to the worst?

Who is scaremongering now?

Not me, read back to see who first brought this into the discussion. 

The issue doesn't arise because the Government has provided a bailout to keep Bulb going and supplying their customers.

If the Government had not Bulb would have ceased trading - as it essentially had run out of cash and its bankers weren't prepared to keep it going - and those 1.7 million households would have no supplier. And yes - that could have meant supplies cut off.

The whole point - which you seem again to be missing - is that this issue will not arise and no one will be cut off because the Government has stepped in to bailout the company and keep those customers supplied with gas and electricity.

emmajones1976

Rich2808 said:

emmajones1976 said:

oliverbrown said:

emmajones1976 said:

So your theory is that they would do that to 1.7m people, most of which would have paid their bills on time, if the worst came to the worst?

Who is scaremongering now?

Not me, read back to see who first brought this into the discussion. 

The issue doesn't arise because the Government has provided a bailout to keep Bulb going and supplying their customers.

If the Government had not Bulb would have ceased trading - as it essentially had run out of cash and its bankers weren't prepared to keep it going - and those 1.7 million households would have no supplier. And yes - that could have meant supplies cut off.

The whole point - which you seem again to be missing - is that this issue will not arise and no one will be cut off because the Government has stepped in to bailout the company and keep those customers supplied with gas and electricity.

And yet again, no it wouldnt. But we are going around in circles now. If you genuinely believe 1.7m households would have been cut off, good luck to you.

jimjames

emmajones1976 said:

Rich2808 said:

DiseasedBunny said:

This is where its wrong - if its broke, let it fold

And leave 1.7 million households without electricity and gas in mid winter?

Well thats never going to happen, is it? Even if nobody wants to take their customers on, they wont just get "cut off", there would have to be a nationalisation of some sort.

You mean just like what has been announced?

Rich2808

Inigo_Montoya said:

one thing that would definately help IMO is a change in the rules so that energy suppliers HAVE to allow customers to pay by variable direct debit i.e. so customers do not build up any credit balance - better still make it the default option unless a customer decides to opt out

As well as being beneficial for many customers, its also beneficial if the supplier goes bust as the amount of built up credit that needs to be repaid by the Ofgem insurance fund will be less

It would also mean small companies would be less able to "mis-use" such  customer credit balances for nefarious purposes (such as what has been discussed regarding AVRO)

Agreed - but the point of the current system is to smooth payments and ease budgeting for customers.

So instead of people paying £300 in January and £50 in July - they pay £100 each month. So inevitably in October people will have credit balances - but by April those will have mostly disappeared.

pecuniam_hominem

Rich2808 said:

emmajones1976 said:

oliverbrown said:

emmajones1976 said:

So your theory is that they would do that to 1.7m people, most of which would have paid their bills on time, if the worst came to the worst?

Who is scaremongering now?

Not me, read back to see who first brought this into the discussion. 

The issue doesn't arise because the Government has provided a bailout to keep Bulb going and supplying their customers.

If the Government had not Bulb would have ceased trading - as it essentially had run out of cash and its bankers weren't prepared to keep it going - and those 1.7 million households would have no supplier. And yes - that could have meant supplies cut off.

The whole point - which you seem again to be missing - is that this issue will not arise and no one will be cut off because the Government has stepped in to bailout the company and keep those customers supplied with gas and electricity.

Stop saying people would be cut off. If the government hadn't stepped in and Bulb went bust, people still wouldn't be cut off. No one at the national grid is just going to start pressing buttons to shut things down.

Stop scaremongering.

A_Lert

Nobody's answered my comment about prepayment meters. They automatically cut off the supply if you can't top up. The meter doesn't know the reason you can't top up is you don't have a supplier. While I'm sure that can be bypassed, who would do the bypassing?

Rich2808

pecuniam_hominem said:

Rich2808 said:

emmajones1976 said:

oliverbrown said:

emmajones1976 said:

So your theory is that they would do that to 1.7m people, most of which would have paid their bills on time, if the worst came to the worst?

Who is scaremongering now?

Not me, read back to see who first brought this into the discussion. 

The issue doesn't arise because the Government has provided a bailout to keep Bulb going and supplying their customers.

If the Government had not Bulb would have ceased trading - as it essentially had run out of cash and its bankers weren't prepared to keep it going - and those 1.7 million households would have no supplier. And yes - that could have meant supplies cut off.

The whole point - which you seem again to be missing - is that this issue will not arise and no one will be cut off because the Government has stepped in to bailout the company and keep those customers supplied with gas and electricity.

Stop saying people would be cut off. If the government hadn't stepped in and Bulb went bust, people still wouldn't be cut off. No one at the national grid is just going to start pressing buttons to shut things down.

Stop scaremongering.

Its an entirely academic discussion - as the bailout has occurred!

Of course if the market was going to deliver a solution to avoid the situation you are concerned about - why does the taxpayer need to provide any bailout? Presumably the market would just keep supplying Bulb customers for free indefinitely (as Bulb wouldn't exist to pay them) - because they are nice charitable caring people of course?

No one is ever going to be cut off - not because of the nice caring sharing suppliers but because the Government will never let it happen. That is why they have stepped in - because the free market has failed!

QrizB

A_Lert said:

Nobody's answered my comment about prepayment meters. They automatically cut off the supply if you can't top up. The meter doesn't know the reason you can't top up is you don't have a supplier. While I'm sure that can be bypassed, who would do the bypassing?

Every energy company that has gone bust in the past few months has had an administrator appointed, Special or otherwise, and that administrator has kept the back-end systems up so that prepayment still works.

IF a supplier went bust AND there was no administrator appointed AND someone switched off the back-end systems THEN you might find prepayment meters cutting people off, BUT that has not occurred and would take a castastrophic failure on the part of Ofgem / GEMA / BEIS.

I'd be more concerned about a ransomware attack on the system, TBH.

Gerry1

Rich2808 said:

That is why they have stepped in - because the free market has failed!

IIRC Bulb went bust not because the free market failed but because Ofgem forced them to trade at a loss by capping their standard variable tariff, the only tariff that they offered.