Telecom Plus Discussion Area

dag_2

As consumers, we have to take it with a pinch of salt when anyone says "cheapest".

For example - I live in the Seeboard area, I have no gas, I have a two-rate leccy meter, and I use on average 3877kWh per year during the day, and 1250kWh per year during the night. The cheapest tariff for this usage, at the moment, is basicpower standard. Actually it would be cheaper to do away with the Economy 7 meter and switch to one of Amerada's tariffs - but there's very little in it. The neighbours complain about the noise if I use the washing machine during the night.

Does this make Amerada or basicpower the "cheapest"? No. The "cheapest depending", maybe - but then, a lot of suppliers could call themselves the "cheapest depending". To insist on Telecom Plus calling themselves the "cheapest depending" rather than the "cheapest" seems to be splitting hairs.

It depends on how you define the word "cheapest". When an advertiser says "cheapest", it doesn't mean "cheapest" in the same way that consumers normally mean it.

If you put the word "cheapest" into Google, you get an ad for Kelkoo, saying they will "find the cheapest". I'm sure Kelkoo will do no such thing. Why is it okay for Kelkoo use the word "cheapest" if it's not okay for Telecom Plus?

If consumers are supposed to know better, does that make it okay?

What about people with learning difficulties? Or whose first language isn't English? Or who are blind or partially sighted? They are the people who are most likely to lose out.

Perhaps the solution is to ban all advertisers from using the word "cheapest" - make it a criminal offence. Or force advertisers to pay compensation claims for saying they're the cheapest when they're not.

If Telecom Plus's use of the word "cheapest" bothers you, then I think it's worth finding out if there's any legal way of enforcing it.

loon_2

Two quick points:

1:(not meant to be offensive). Where do you live? Is it in a bubble that is not affected by time? And where did you find Amerada to be the cheapest?

The only reason I ask is that Amerada went into receivership, were then given to powergen as a freebie and ceased to exhist in January 2004.

2: the problem we have is not with the word cheapest, but with t+'s total disregard for the ASA.

This is a chat forum, ideal for discussing... money saving options, problems with suppliers, etc.

However, when the same person logs onto the site under different guises (also denying that they are the same person) in an attempt to plug their company and belittle competitors, it goes against the rules.

dag_2

Cheapest,cheeper,chirpy chirpy cheep cheep.

heh!

And where did you find Amerada to be the cheapest?

Umm - I thought energyhelpline - though I didn't bother checking with amerada - or whoever it was - can't remember now.

However, when the same person logs onto the site under different guises (also denying that they are the same person) in an attempt to plug their company and belittle competitors, it goes against the rules.

Kinda agree. But then again, third party spamming against competitors is not unheard of.

If Telecom Plus can flout ASA rulings and get away with it, then it shows that the ASA doesn't have enough legal bite.

Back

The point is it is of my opinion from experience that Tplus are not giving the facts as they really are

I agree - I'm gradually learning about what's going on, and have found this .... http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=38116&from_index=issues&issue_id=36

The advertisers said consumers could not buy cheaper gas and electricity, as single fuels or with a dual-fuel discount, from other providers. They said they monitored their competitors' prices to ensure they always offered the lowest prices. The advertisers did not send evidence, however, in support of the claim. The Authority noted it had previously upheld complaints about the claims "UK's cheapest domestic electricity" and "UK's cheapest domestic gas" in their advertising and was concerned that the advertisers had repeated those claims. Because it considered that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim, the Authority told them not to repeat it unless they held comparative data to prove it.

Hmm. Take your point. So what can the ASA do about it? Can they issue an injunction?

For non –broadcast advertising a legal backstop also exists to deal with the rare occasions when the ASA is unable to prevent a misleading advertisement from reappearing. We can refer the case to the Office of Fair Trading, which can seek an injunction to prevent misleading claims from being repeated.

I'd say it's nearly time Telecom Plus got referred to the OFT.

So far, the ASA has referred 20 cases to the OFT since 1988 - and six of those have resulted in an injunction. I think they consider an injunction to be a last resort.

If they don't comply with the injunction, then that's "contempt of court", which can result in a fine of up £25,000 and a prison sentence of up to 5 years - presumably that means out on home curfew after two and a half.

Hate to say it, but I think that £25,000 is probably small fry to Telecom Plus. And our prisons are already pretty crowded.

Former_MSE_Moderator

Another complaint has been received about this thread going round in circles.

In future it might be an idea when claiming that TP+ is either more expensive or less expensive or 'cheapest' please give a concrete example including actual usage and cost:-

Include all factors involved in coming to your conclusion (i.e. other suppliers cost, what discounts, whether it includes 'club' membership, etc)

When replying to another's claim also include details of all the factors involved in your calculation.

Only then can others come to any conclusion.

As things stand at the moment there is no point in anyone wishing to change utility suppiers to read this thread.

Please remember: - no personal abuse.

loon_2

hey. i also have a story.

once there was a cat. as all cats, it liked to sleep allday. this cat was ginger and had the unoriginal name of tom.

relevence: none
point: none

it's all well and good using a story to emphasise your point (hell, it worked for the bible), but after reading the last one i'm still confused.

What does some guy preaching on a hill have to do with t+ telling everyone that they are the cheapest supplier in the uk.

Is the point of the story supposed to be 'we can lie as people have a choice not to listen?' because that's about all i got from it.

As for asking smartasss for his details... pls stop. I have read his posts and it is obvious he knows what he is talking about. I too have checked online against various mpans and i too have found companies other than t+ to be cheaper. Does this make me a liar too, as i do not conform to t+ info.

The fact of the matter is thus... a number of people have done price comparisons on various sites and come up with results other than t+(including a national article in the guardian, which subsequently was published, indicating authenticity). What people are asking is why when confronted with proof are those who post on behalf of t+ denying the results and arguing.

All we ask is a straight answer. When we ask why?... we do not expect to get told:

' i have x amount of t+ products so i ghet x amount of discount.'

All we want to know is why!

The facts are simple.... if you cannot give us a straight answer, we wont believe you.... no matter how long you stand on your mount.

As for my consumption, i'm not 100% percent on actual consumption, but i doubt you could do better.

I currently have a whispergen generator supplying my energy. My monthly bills work out on average of -£50, yes thats -£50. My supplier buys my excess units from me, hence paying for my consumption and generating a tidy profit.

Can t+ do better than this?

Smartasss

A separate problem T+ customers have is due to them consistently sending bills out late.

They say they will ensure bills arrive at least 10 days before payment is taken - though the evidence from their customers posted here has been that this doesn't happen. Their reps have blamed the postal service - though it seems the post only delays T+ bills!

Customers need their bills on time to be able to ensure they have funds available in the bank to meet T+'s direct debit request (which relates to monthly consumption, not a regular amount) - penalties are imposed by T+ should any DD not be honoured.

Their customers should take care this month - as a new variant of the problem, they haven't sent any new bills, just a copy of an old bill relating to consumption during August!!

As the EnergyHelpLine still says about them:

We would only recommend Telecom Plus to the most ardent money savers........ Telecom Plus are a small relatively new supplier. They provide a fairly basic supply service

hansi

A separate problem T+ customers have is due to them consistently sending bills out late.

They say they will ensure bills arrive at least 10 days before payment is taken - though the evidence from their customers posted here has been that this doesn't happen. Their reps have blamed the postal service - though it seems the post only delays T+ bills!

Customers need their bills on time to be able to ensure they have funds available in the bank to meet T+'s direct debit request (which relates to monthly consumption, not a regular amount) - penalties are imposed by T+ should any DD not be honoured.

Their customers should take care this month - as a new variant of the problem, they haven't sent any new bills, just a copy of an old bill relating to consumption during August!!

As the EnergyHelpLine still says about them:

Mr or Mrs Smartass, please don't make waves about late bills. I know I posted on this problem some time ago, but I have now been getting e bills regularly, in fact I just received this months bill today with payment being taken on 30 Oct. And the posted bill will be with me in a few days. For all your loathing of TP+, please give them some credit for this

Smartasss

No loathing here!

****************************
You reported today (21/10/04 - the latest that your bills should have arrived through the post to give 10 days notice before your DD will be taken):

the posted bill will be with me in a few days

So in fact you agree with what I have to say - the bills regularly arrive late, giving their members little time to ensure the funds are available.

(You are fortunate to be also able to get your bill via the internet - this system is not available to everyone! Only those with internet access)

But you missed the main point - this month the bills are both late and incorrect.

The point that I was making was to alert their "members" that they can't rely on the bills being accurate when they eventually arrive.

COS

Hold on, hold on, hold on.  You mean to say that you are merely sales reps... NO!

... and you're trying to tell me that you actually use terms such as senior executive/manager when you have no claim to the title.  Do you tell your victims, sorry i meant customers, that you are t+ managers when you call round... I bet you do!

Does making up titles for yourself make you fellf important after a hard days door knocking?

Oh... must go. Got a new job... I'm an independent executive for MI5. I don't actually work for them or get paid by them, but i get commission for all terrorists i arrest. Sounds too good to be true.

Just goes to show... you can be anything you want to be as long as you apply yourself correctly... or... you could just make it up.

A different way to look at it

 http://forum.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=FM;action=display;num=1098132903;start=0#13

dag_2

I think that my earlier slightly sarcastic comment, implying that a custodial sentence might not be a deterrent for Telecom Plus, was uncalled for, and I'd like to apologise for it.

Going back a bit ...

T+ detractors obviously have a lot of time on their hands, why don't you put your "talents" to good use and start your own utility company and acheive something worthwhile instead of hacking away at a company that does offer genuine savings to the public.

... I don't rate your marketing skills. When you find that you're making snidey comments about potential customers, perhaps it's time to give up on them and go find better leads. What were you saying about having lots of time ...?

As loon says ...

The fact of the matter is thus... a number of people have done price comparisons on various sites and come up with results other than t+(including a national article in the guardian, which subsequently was published, indicating authenticity). What people are asking is why when confronted with proof are those who post on behalf of t+ denying the results and arguing.

I agree - but despite all our efforts at comparison, that injunction isn't going to appear magically out of thin air.

On the other hand, T+ rep denials of our evidence isn't going to stop an OFT referral by the ASA either.

Or will it?

Actually, I'm not sure. T+ reps know that the people who are most likely to lobby the ASA for that OFT referral are - guess who? Yep - you and me - the sort of people who post on forums like this one.

But while we're wasting time arguing with T+ reps, the injunction isn't happening - and T+ continue to say their gas and electricity is the cheapest when it isn't.

If we want to do something about this - we need to do it by the book. We need to get onto the ASA.

By the way, does anyone know who would go to prison when the injunction gets served? I'm not sure - but I'm guessing it works like this: Before the injunction is served, any T+ rep can say that T+ is the cheapest, with complete impunity. But after the injunction is served, it will probably apply to all T+ reps. Anyone who claims, on T+'s behalf, that they're the cheapest, is guilty of a criminal offence. If 1000 reps say that T+ is the cheapest, then up to 1000 people will be going to prison.

I'm aware that not all sentences are custodial, and that community punishment orders, community rehabilitation orders, and drug treatment and testing orders also exist - though I don't know if such sentences can be passed for breaking an injunction.

It's not necessarily the top dogs from Telecom Plus who will take the rap for it either. I hate to sound cynical, but there are very good reasons why they engage independent self-employed marketers at arm's length.

I don't wish to sound alarmist - indeed, the injunction cannot possibly happen before the OFT referral, and I doubt it'll happen for a few months yet - if at all. However, I would strongly recommend that T+ reps keep an eye on the developments with the ASA.

On smart's point ...

The point that I was making was to alert their "members" that they can't rely on the bills being accurate when they eventually arrive.

True, however, it's practically unheard-of for disputed bills to be enforced in the courts. I appreciate that this doesn't help the majority of consumers, who don't want the hassle of dealing with rude debt collectors.

However, if you just want to make the mud stick to Telecom Plus, then I think it'll be far easier to pin them legally for advertising misrepresentation, than for making the odd mistake in their bills now and then.