Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

Spoonie_Turtle

ariarnia said:

Sterlingtimes said:

The policy is directed at safeguarding the most vulnerable. But what happens to the vulnerable who are not the most vulnerable?

thats the situation i worry about. people who dont qualify or dont apply for the right benifits and maybe are on just enough  to manage most of the time but can't just 'efficiency' there way to finding £5k for annual energy when a year ago they might have shopped around for a good fix so only been paying 1k. i think the limit for a lot of benifits is something like 16k. no way can someone no matter how efficient on less than at least 25k just reduce expenditure to cope with bills at that level. thats not even thinking about the way food and fuel has gone up. people need to eat to get to work and to keep there homes damp free at a minimum. the level of support should reflect that and realise theres a much bigger cliff edge than normal between those who have always been seen as 'most vulnerable' and those who might well be quite a bit worse off without any support. 

Just for the sake of accuracy, the £16k limit for means-tested benefits is for savings, not income.  The actual income threshold varies by individual circumstance - single/couple, children, disability, rent/no rent, any savings above £6k, etc.

So for instance a single person over 25 without rent costs or dependent children will not qualify for UC if they earn over £608.92/month (net, take-home pay is after tax / NI / pension contributions), so just ~£7,307 take-home per year.  For a couple who own their home and without dependent children it would be £955.85/month, ~£11,470.20/yr.
Note that if they earned just under the relevant threshold, they would only have literally pennies payable from UC, no help with health costs, and probably no other passported help except rare one-off schemes like the Cost of Living payments.

I agree with all of your points, by the way.  Just adding info to illustrate how low the levels actually are that the government deems 'not enough to live on'.

wittynamegoeshere

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

I sympathise - not least as I can see my Mum being in a similar situation in times to come. She can currently afford her bills, but if prices go up as much as they could do, that situation might change. She currently lives in what an EA would market as a 3 bed terrace - in actual fact it's a 2 bed, realistically - the third room would literally just fit a single bed and nothing else, and contains the boiler so in the summer it gets quite unbearably hot. In our area, bungalows go for easily £100k more than her house would fetch, if sold. Then there are all the associated financial costs - legal fees plus disbursements would be an additional £1500. Add Stamp duty. Then agents fees. Removal costs. Then there are the personal costs on top - the house Mum lives in and loves is where she lived with  my Dad until he died a few months ago. It was bought by them with the thinking that there was the potential there that some modifications could be made if needed as they got older - indeed there was a stairlift that Dad needed for a few months - so we know that if needed again, that would work. Downstairs is all on the level. There is a small garden - easily maintainable and manageable. The bottom line though is that even if she was to want to move - it would realistically be at a cost of at least £110,000 that she simply doesn't have. Renting isn't an question - even if in her late 70s, she actually wanted to go back to what she would see as that level of uncertainty and feeling like the roof over her head isn't "hers" any more, the only bungalows local to us to rent realistically are still council stock. This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts. It's fabulous that some people live in areas of the country where this sort of dilemma isn't an issue, or indeed have relatives in a fortunate enough financial position that finding an odd £100k isn't going to prove a stumbling block - but those who are in that sort of position do need to bear in mind that a) their area might not be typical of what applies elsewhere and b) it's not everyone who just has the money in the bank to fund a house move in their old age. Also c) moving home is recognised as one of the single most stressful things a person can do - I certainly wouldn't want to see my Mum go through that level of stress at her age - but you know what, I wouldn't want to see anyone else's elderly relatives being made to feel they should put themselves in that position, either.  

(Insert heap of disclaimers here)  Have you looked at equity release?  If your mum is absolutely certain that she doesn't need to move ever then it could be an option.

My mum's done it, all without ever discussing it with me.  Obviously it will reduce the amount of any future inheritance, but I'm very happy to get less or even nothing if it means that she's comfortable.  I'm not counting on inheriting anything, I'd much prefer both lots of our parents to enjoy themselves and go out with nothing than be miserable so I can get a pile of money I've done nothing for.

Tread extremely carefully and get lots of advice, there are some shark-like companies about.

I think some are interpreting all my comments in some odd ways.  I'm just suggesting things that people could do for themselves, based on the worst case assumption that the govt will provide none or very little assistance and prices remain high.  This seems like a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that we as a nation are in debt up to our eyeballs and borrowing more has suddenly got much more expensive.  I don't think Ukraine and Russia are going to be hugging any time soon, and even if they did then Europe isn't going to be getting Russian gas for a very long time.

I'd suggest assuming that the government handouts will stop, prices will rise and assessing your options for yourself from there.  Not because I want this to be the case, but because I believe that this is a the reality of where our country is - we're in huge trouble financially.  Sorry if this isn't putting things delicately enough for some, but sometimes the truth isn't nice.

I haven't said that every suggestion is the answer for everyone.  I've suggested lodgers and moving house, I haven't suggested selling body organs, but you'd think so from some offended tones.

ariarnia

Spoonie_Turtle said:

ariarnia said:

Sterlingtimes said:

The policy is directed at safeguarding the most vulnerable. But what happens to the vulnerable who are not the most vulnerable?

thats the situation i worry about. people who dont qualify or dont apply for the right benifits and maybe are on just enough  to manage most of the time but can't just 'efficiency' there way to finding £5k for annual energy when a year ago they might have shopped around for a good fix so only been paying 1k. i think the limit for a lot of benifits is something like 16k. no way can someone no matter how efficient on less than at least 25k just reduce expenditure to cope with bills at that level. thats not even thinking about the way food and fuel has gone up. people need to eat to get to work and to keep there homes damp free at a minimum. the level of support should reflect that and realise theres a much bigger cliff edge than normal between those who have always been seen as 'most vulnerable' and those who might well be quite a bit worse off without any support. 

Just for the sake of accuracy, the £16k limit for means-tested benefits is for savings, not income.  The actual income threshold varies by individual circumstance - single/couple, children, disability, rent/no rent, any savings above £6k, etc.

thank you. we are lucky enough that our experience of the benifit system is more than a decade out of date and in the cobwebby bits of the brain. i think someone recently said there were schemes available to help with things like insulation and bills but it was qualifying benifits OR under 16k income and i mixed the two up. that would be a sensible way to look at it though. there are lots of people who for one reason or another arent on benifits but are on a very low income (variable weekly pay and things like that) but i still think the cut off would need to be a lot higher than 16k once you add in the increases to housing cost and food and transport. 

Spoonie_Turtle

ariarnia said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

ariarnia said:

Sterlingtimes said:

The policy is directed at safeguarding the most vulnerable. But what happens to the vulnerable who are not the most vulnerable?

thats the situation i worry about. people who dont qualify or dont apply for the right benifits and maybe are on just enough  to manage most of the time but can't just 'efficiency' there way to finding £5k for annual energy when a year ago they might have shopped around for a good fix so only been paying 1k. i think the limit for a lot of benifits is something like 16k. no way can someone no matter how efficient on less than at least 25k just reduce expenditure to cope with bills at that level. thats not even thinking about the way food and fuel has gone up. people need to eat to get to work and to keep there homes damp free at a minimum. the level of support should reflect that and realise theres a much bigger cliff edge than normal between those who have always been seen as 'most vulnerable' and those who might well be quite a bit worse off without any support. 

Just for the sake of accuracy, the £16k limit for means-tested benefits is for savings, not income.  The actual income threshold varies by individual circumstance - single/couple, children, disability, rent/no rent, any savings above £6k, etc.

thank you. we are lucky enough that our experience of the benifit system is more than a decade out of date and in the cobwebby bits of the brain. i think someone recently said there were schemes available to help with things like insulation and bills but it was qualifying benifits OR under 16k income and i mixed the two up. that would be a sensible way to look at it though. but i still think the cut off would need to be a lot higher than 16k once you add in the increases to housing cost and food and transport. 

Completely agree.  A huge fundamental flaw in the system is the people who decide the minimum needed to survive have absolutely zero experience of living in the real world, they assume all people struggling have brought it on themselves (because let's face it, they've not actually had to do all that much work to earn their own grossly inflated salary, so they think it must be easy for everyone else to do the same and refuse to comprehend just how hard lower paid people actually work) and really have no clue how much anything actually costs.  There are plenty of people who've worked out what's actually needed (e.g. the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) but they're ignored by the people in power.  So yes, actual decent thresholds would need to be used, not on or below the poverty line!

@wittynamegoeshere I think one of the problems with your suggestion that people should move is just that, logically, if people can't afford the increase in energy bills, they probably also can't afford the upfront costs of moving even if it woukd otherwise be an option for them.  Some sort of Help to Move scheme could work well if they were interest-free loans, paid back from the proceeds of the sale or something, but that would also assume that everyone moving would make a profit on their house which in reality may very well not happen.  Either that or paid back through wages or benefits, at a level that doesn't cause hardship like the increased bills were going to.  Moving can't even necessarily be thought of as reducing energy bills, more likely simply preventing an unaffordable increase, so not exactly freeing money up.

Even less drastic but effective measures such as replacing appliances with more energy-efficient ones require an up front cost higher than the bill increase, so again the same problem that a lot of people really can't afford it.

Max68

Isn't there a definition of fuel poverty?  I know in other parts of the UK a household is considered to be in fuel poverty is more than 10% of income is spent on fuel costs and the amount remaining is not enough to maintain an adequate standard of living. Think it's a bit more complex in England.  Maybe that's an area that should be looked at re a ceiling for targeted support, I don't know.  I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help.  Over the winter for instance Premier League footballers on £150 grand a year, as far as I know, are getting that £400.  That's just ridiculous.

As any have said the problem is too many alternative options have too high up-front cost and there are no cheap interest loans or credit cards out there now.  Re equity release, anyone looking at this look into it very carefully.  Someone suggested it as an option to me and I spoke with a friend of mine who is a retired property lawyer and he warned me off big time.  That was just my circumstances, it might be ok for others but get some really good advice before considering big moves like that.

[Deleted User]

Max68 said:

 I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help.  Over the winter for instance Premier League footballers on £150 grand a year, as far as I know, are getting that £400.  That's just ridiculous.

The reality is though, giving £400 to "everyone" (although the scheme didn't quite manage that) is simple, understandable and fast.  The fact that it gives a few quid to a relatively small number of people who don't need it isn't actually a problem.

As you notice in this thread, as soon as it's not universal then there is an endless stream of arguments about drawing the line, who gets included/excluded, how do we make sure it's only the 'right' people etc.

ariarnia

Max68 said:

Isn't there a definition of fuel poverty?  I know in other parts of the UK a household is considered to be in fuel poverty is more than 10% of income is spent on fuel costs and the amount remaining is not enough to maintain an adequate standard of living. Think it's a bit more complex in England.  Maybe that's an area that should be looked at re a ceiling for targeted support, I don't know.  I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help. 

i think the problem is theres no central database with household income and spend on energy. so how do you identify those people? 

i think the flat 150 based on council tax is/was probably not a bad option all things considered as you need something that can be easily given out or the cost and time for means testing just for this for bespoke criteria would probably loose a lot of the savings from targeting. or what they did with a flat 400 for everyone with topped up support for those identified via existing benifits plus maybe with proof of need being able to be submitted on a case by case basis if for example they have home dialysis or something like that for an extra top up. 

what i think was wrong and unsustainable was the unlimited and uncostable cap for 2 years. yes I really liked the security and now hate the uncertainty but a blank cheque is never sensible. 

The_Green_Hornet

Max68 said:

Isn't there a definition of fuel poverty?  I know in other parts of the UK a household is considered to be in fuel poverty is more than 10% of income is spent on fuel costs and the amount remaining is not enough to maintain an adequate standard of living. Think it's a bit more complex in England.  Maybe that's an area that should be looked at re a ceiling for targeted support, I don't know.  I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help.  Over the winter for instance Premier League footballers on £150 grand a year, as far as I know, are getting that £400.  That's just ridiculous.

As any have said the problem is too many alternative options have too high up-front cost and there are no cheap interest loans or credit cards out there now.  Re equity release, anyone looking at this look into it very carefully.  Someone suggested it as an option to me and I spoke with a friend of mine who is a retired property lawyer and he warned me off big time.  That was just my circumstances, it might be ok for others but get some really good advice before considering big moves like that.

England defines a household as being in fuel poverty if:

• The household’s fuel poverty energy efficiency rating* is Band D or below and 

• their disposable income (after housing and fuel costs) is below the poverty line. 

The problem with all these things is how easy is it for the government to identify who needs the help, and to get the money to them quickly, without introducing a large administrative overhead to do so.

For example, it is easier to identify which household has an electricity account than it is to determine which household has an electricity account and its residents don't earn over £x.

Max68

Deleted_User said:

Max68 said:

 I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help.  Over the winter for instance Premier League footballers on £150 grand a year, as far as I know, are getting that £400.  That's just ridiculous.

The reality is though, giving £400 to "everyone" (although the scheme didn't quite manage that) is simple, understandable and fast.  The fact that it gives a few quid to a relatively small number of people who don't need it isn't actually a problem.

As you notice in this thread, as soon as it's not universal then there is an endless stream of arguments about drawing the line, who gets included/excluded, how do we make sure it's only the 'right' people etc.

Exactly.  It's been the same with the Winter Fuel Payment.  I remember when mum was well and living at home, she tried to hand it back because she didn't need it and they said she couldn't send it back.  Ended up giving it to charity.   We already have another problem with the Warm Home Discount roll out this year where a lot of people in last year's broader group miss out on that and can't apply.  

Hence my point on the fuel poverty line of whatever it is, 10% or 20% of your income spent on energy, being a possible guide for April.  Whatever is suggested though it's going to be difficult to find a balance.

ariarnia

The_Green_Hornet said:

Max68 said:

Isn't there a definition of fuel poverty?  I know in other parts of the UK a household is considered to be in fuel poverty is more than 10% of income is spent on fuel costs and the amount remaining is not enough to maintain an adequate standard of living. Think it's a bit more complex in England.  Maybe that's an area that should be looked at re a ceiling for targeted support, I don't know.  I do agree though the system that has been scrapped was helping too many people that didn't need help.  Over the winter for instance Premier League footballers on £150 grand a year, as far as I know, are getting that £400.  That's just ridiculous.

As any have said the problem is too many alternative options have too high up-front cost and there are no cheap interest loans or credit cards out there now.  Re equity release, anyone looking at this look into it very carefully.  Someone suggested it as an option to me and I spoke with a friend of mine who is a retired property lawyer and he warned me off big time.  That was just my circumstances, it might be ok for others but get some really good advice before considering big moves like that.

England defines a household as being in fuel poverty if:

• The household’s fuel poverty energy efficiency rating* is Band D or below and 

• their disposable income (after housing and fuel costs) is below the poverty line. 

The problem with all these things is how easy is it for the government to identify who needs the help, and to get the money to them quickly, without introducing a large administrative overhead to do so.

For example, it is easier to identify which household has an electricity account than it is to determine which household has an electricity account and its residents don't earn over £x.

it wouldn't be over x amount income though if its disposable income after housing and fuel. not unless its a notional cost for housing and energy.

it would be setting up a database of actual income housing and energy costs (processing applications with evidence and checking if people were overpaying their dd or on their morgage to qualify) then the appeals process...