British Gas Welcome to British Gas

BZ12

Mstty said:

Sad state of affairs imo where customers were hunting the best deals with the least stable customers and then when one of the big six take them on with some poor wording they take them to the ombudsman. Despite the fact all the details from Ofgem about the SOLR informed them they would be put on the standard variable rate.

Honestly it looks and feels dirty to me.

Shame

I don’t think that’s entirely fair - as a customer we had no way of knowing that the small energy companies were running an unhedged position and therefore likely to fail if wholesale prices increased.  British Gas took on these SoLR customers on a commercial basis.  I understand that they were under no obligation to do so, although I suspect they knew that the initial period may be unprofitable.  However this wasn’t a fleeting error on BG’s part - they continued with the same wording for about 5 months in my case.  I believed that the price guarantee was just that, and would probably have taken another fixed rate (possibly the one they offered me in December) if I had known otherwise.

As it happens, British Gas let me down badly about 20 years ago on a boiler service contract.  At the time I was too busy to pursue it, so if this provides an opportunity for a little bit of justice, to my eyes at least, that suits me.

Mstty

From what I have read so far BG will likely just claim this "paper work" under the supplier of last resort levy claim which will go on everyone's standing charge. It would be silly for Ofgem to not work with BG over this as they will be needed to break up bulb customers between the big 6 next I suspect.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/letter-suppliers-supplier-last-resort-levy-claims

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/last-resort-supplier-payment-claim-octopus-energy

StartledJesus

Moreover, the compensation is not just for the ‘misleading’ issue, but also for appalling customer service by BG. Which by granting, BG is effectively admitting to, and accepting that there is a problem. Customer time has a cost as much as any employee does. Perhaps we should all log our time, and claim for reimbursement like a solicitor does. Plus telephone costs. Plus time for additional stress.

I have never spent so much time looking at my energy bills as I have done in the last six months, and it is not really something that I want to be doing, pretty much on a daily basis, to check what has, or hasn’t, happened in my absence. I have better things to do with my life, especially at my age.

At the end of the day, I am never going to feel sorry for a vast commercial corporation. 

Mstty

Oh dear.

I just don't want 1-2p added to the standing charge for people already on or below the poverty line.

Gerry1

Mstty said:

Sad state of affairs imo where customers were hunting the best deals with the least stable customers and then when one of the big six take them on with some poor wording they take them to the ombudsman. Despite the fact all the details from Ofgem about the SOLR informed them they would be put on the standard variable rate.

Honestly it looks and feels dirty to me.

Shame

Couldn't disagree more. I'm afraid.  (BTW, I assume you mean 'least stable suppliers'?)

For years, customers have been urged by all and sundry to switch suppliers to get better value: Martin, all the comparison sites, Government ministers, Which?, Citizens Advice, R4's Moneybox, local council schemes, refer-a-friend schemes, advertising campaigns, you name it, they urged it at every opportunity.

Even dozy Ofgem were considering a scheme where those who had not switched for several years would be sent a letter advising them to do so.  Therefore, it's hardly surprising that customers followed that bombardment of advice, especially those that weren't rich enough to burn money.

Customers had no way to establish the financial stability of their new supplier, and why should they have been expected to do so?  They knew that all suppliers had to be licensed by Ofgem and, not unreasonably, they expected Ofgem to have used due diligence in verifying their new suppliers' stability.

As previously stated, the only logical interpretation of BG's wording was that the SoLR tariff included a fixed rate introductory period as a sweetener to discourage customers leaving immediately, after which it would drop on to the capped variable rate.

If BG couldn't be bothered to check what they had written (note that it wasn't a one-off temporary blip, it applied to several SoLR contracts over quite some time) then it's only fair that they should be held to the contract details they offered.  It's good to see that the Ombudsman agrees; they are not noted for being an effective customer advocate.

All that's really 'dirty' is BG trying to evade its responsibilities to customers who would have switched to a better deal if BG hadn't misled them with a Price Guarantee that they chose not to honour.

MWT

Gerry1 said:

As previously stated, the only logical interpretation of BG's wording was that the SoLR tariff included a fixed rate introductory period as a sweetener to discourage customers leaving immediately, after which it would drop on to the capped variable rate.

With respect, the logical interpretation was that BG messed up as the tariff label contained obvious errors and conflicting information, the hopeful interpretation was that it had a fixed period that also was the same as the full life of the tariff even though it was marked as 'variable' ...

BG certainly should have fixed it far quicker than they did and should not have done a cut&Paste to all the other recent SoLR tariffs either...

Mobtr

I don’t get this idea that people stayed with BG because they thought the price was fixed until June or July 22 which is only 3-4 months into this price cap. Surely if there had been better tariffs available to go onto at the time they would have been fixed for longer & a much better deal anyway. Love the way everyone ignores the bit that says variable, the bit on the bottom that says it’s variable & just fixated on the one line that says guaranteed. 

Gerry1

@MWT @Mobtr We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but the only logical interpretation was that it was a hybrid, a Price Guaranteed period followed by a Variable capped price thereafter.  Nobody would reasonably have thought that BG would make so many obvious errors and leave them uncorrected for so long.  It's not as if it was a flustered new temp in a corner shop sticking on a £3.99 label for something obviously worth £399.

BZ12

Mobtr said:

I don’t get this idea that people stayed with BG because they thought the price was fixed until June or July 22 which is only 3-4 months into this price cap. Surely if there had been better tariffs available to go onto at the time they would have been fixed for longer & a much better deal anyway. Love the way everyone ignores the bit that says variable, the bit on the bottom that says it’s variable & just fixated on the one line that says guaranteed. 

I disagree.  Whether this 3 months in question  (April - June) were set at a lower rate by this price guarantee would reasonably affect a decision on taking an alternative fixed rate contract.  

In mid December, BG offered me a fixed rate (to Jan 24 from memory) at about 24p/kWh.  To move to that I was going to have to give up either 3.5 or 6.5 months of 20p/kWh, depending on the validity of this price guarantee.  The fact that I believed it to be 6.5 months, quite naturally, affected this decision.

It is now clear that it would have been better to take this fixed either way, but that is with the benefit of hindsight, and included unforeseeable events such as the invasion of Ukraine.

MWT

Gerry1 said:

@MWT @Mobtr We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but the only logical interpretation was that it was a hybrid, a Price Guaranteed period followed by a Variable capped price thereafter.

The rather unavoidable problem with that interpretation is that there was no period to be variable, as the tariff end date was the same as the guaranteed date.

If the end date for the tariff had been say, October '22, then I would completely agree with you, a hybrid tariff would have been a plausible interpretation, but with the tariff itself ending on the same day as the guarantee, it really just leaves us with conflicting mistakes and no valid interpretation possible.