Octopus hikes estimated annual usage way above actual usage

[Deleted User]

NINJA59 said:

Surely just more of a reason why energy providers should have client accounts and funds held separately to save such nonsense.

If you genuinely believe that suppliers should hold consumer credits in some form of escrow then expect to pay even higher prices than is the case today. Suppliers are required to pay their wholesalers in advance of supply. If this money doesn’t come out of existing cashflow - which includes consumer credit balances - then the supplier would have to borrow. Given the current rate of inflation, and the state of the domestic energy market, then I doubt that risk averse bankers are going to offer a cheap loan - particularly, to smaller/newer suppliers. 

Rather than paying in arrears, arguably suppliers should be estimating a monthly cost going forward and then requiring this variable monthly payment in advance of supply. You don’t pay for the fuel for your car after you have used it, so why should suppliers continue to allow consumers to pay in arrears?

rhedyn

This seems a very odd comparison.  I don't pay for the fuel for my car before I have taken possession of it by putting it in my tank.

rhedyn

Also, if Octopus offered a deal where I bought kWh from them in advance, at today's prices, comparable to filling up the fuel tank in my truck, that would be fine with me.  I might even buy a year's worth of kWh in advance then.  But that's not what's on offer.

wild666

I suspect everyone who was transferred from Avro to Octopus has had their account deducted by however much the meters totalled yesterday as the date of Octopus taking over the supply was the 26th? I will be submitting a new reading on the 1st so that I know how much the new tariff is costing me along with my daily usage, gas usage will be weekly as in summer my weekly gas sometimes is no more than my SC. 

[Deleted User]

rhedyn said:

 I might even buy a year's worth of kWh in advance then.  But that's not what's on offer.

Agreed that isn’t what is on offer. How many things are you paying for in advance? My list is pretty big as I suspect is the case with many others. Just think about it for a moment: if a supplier has 1M customers all paying for their energy after supply, then based on the forthcoming Ofgem Cap a supplier might have to borrow up to £1971/12x 1M or £164M to maintain their cashflow as wholesalers are paid in advance on 30 minute settlements. Who would end up paying the interest on this loan - assuming the supplier could actually borrow that amount of money? Most suppliers encourage customers to set up DD payments by offering a slightly cheaper annual cost. This suits me and millions of other energy customers. I see no advantage whatsoever in being hit with a high Winter energy bill.

rhedyn

I see nothing wrong with suppliers encouraging customers to set up DD and keep a credit balance by offering a discount for doing so, when it is a mutually agreed arrangement for mutual benefit, that seems like fine business practice.  If it suits you that's great.  Octopus is not offering a discount and has broken my trust by unilaterally hiking my DD way above the cost of my actual usage and not allowing me to change it despite their rhetoric of me always being in control, so now I'm going to change it to zero.

There is a word for people who put money into a company to increase the company's cashflow in anticipation of future returns.  That word is "investors".  Not "customers".

Look, I like Octopus a lot, I've been with them for six years and recommended them many times.  I think they are a good company, with real ideals, and generally very good execution.  I still consider them to be the best out there.  But this is a crazy time and that's often when cracks start to show.

[Deleted User]

rhedyn said:

I see nothing wrong with suppliers encouraging customers to set up DD and keep a credit balance by offering a discount for doing so, when it is a mutually agreed arrangement for mutual benefit, that seems like fine business practice.  If it suits you that's great.  Octopus is not offering a discount and has broken my trust by unilaterally hiking my DD way above the cost of my actual usage and not allowing me to change it despite their rhetoric of me always being in control, so now I'm going to change it to zero.

There is a word for people who put money into a company to increase the company's cashflow in anticipation of future returns.  That word is "investors".  Not "customers".

Look, I like Octopus a lot, I've been with them for six years and recommended them many times.  I think they are a good company, with real ideals, and generally very good execution.  I still consider them to be the best out there.  But this is a crazy time and that's often when cracks start to show.

Rather than fill pages on this forum, have you tried the very simple route of emailing greg@octopus.energy

In my experience, at the very least, you will get a response from your cohort team leader. This really is a mountain being made out of a molehill. You will only pay for the energy that you use. In my 4 years with Octopus, I have never experienced any resistance to my DD changes (now possible via the App): I have, however, maintained a credit balance slightly higher than my forecast of the following month's total energy cost. (I need to be able to vary my payments because I get SEG import payments).

rhedyn

I posted on the forum to warn others to check for big jumps in their estimated annual usage.  At no point did I ask for help.  If you don't want this thread to fill pages, then perhaps stop picking arguments with me and then complaining that I respond?  I am well aware of greg@octopus.energy and may email him but have not done so yet because, as I have stated, I am giving hello@octopus.energy until Tuesday to reply.  I think it would be unreasonable to escalate to Greg before giving the regular folks two business days to get back to me, under current circumstances.

Ultrasonic

rhedyn said:

I see nothing wrong with suppliers encouraging customers to set up DD and keep a credit balance by offering a discount for doing so, when it is a mutually agreed arrangement for mutual benefit, that seems like fine business practice.  If it suits you that's great.  Octopus is not offering a discount and has broken my trust by unilaterally hiking my DD way above the cost of my actual usage and not allowing me to change it despite their rhetoric of me always being in control, so now I'm going to change it to zero.

There is a word for people who put money into a company to increase the company's cashflow in anticipation of future returns.  That word is "investors".  Not "customers".

Look, I like Octopus a lot, I've been with them for six years and recommended them many times.  I think they are a good company, with real ideals, and generally very good execution.  I still consider them to be the best out there.  But this is a crazy time and that's often when cracks start to show.

Am I reading this thread correctly that you only contacted Octopus about your current issue on Friday? I agree that what you've described seems a bit odd maybe give them a chance to rectify the issue before drawing too many conclusions.

(I've not yet been an Octopus customer - one still left on my supplier bingo card to cross off!)

rhedyn

Ultrasonic said:

Am I reading this thread correctly that you only contacted Octopus about your current issue on Friday? I agree that what you've described seems a bit odd maybe give them a chance to rectify the issue before drawing too many conclusions.

I am definitely giving them a chance to rectify the issue.  Right now my feeling is I see no particular benefit to me of continuing DD since they don't give a discount and I don't need them to budget for me.  It's always possible they could change my mind when they get back to me. 

In this thread, I am really not anti-Octopus.  What I am, is very strongly anti the argument that we have some moral responsibility to maintain a credit balance and that companies are justified in preventing us from modifying DD amounts that were supposed to be optional to begin with.  That's what I keep pushing back on and it's not really specific to Octopus.  I'm pretty sure Martin would agree with me