Campaign to ban Standing Charges

ariarnia

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

wittynamegoeshere

Do people seriously think it's not a problem that vast numbers of consumers, probably the majority, don't actually know how much they're paying for an essential service that is probably their biggest annual bill?

This confusion only benefits the industry, by allowing them to keep customers who should have left them for a lower priced competitor but simply don't know that they're paying too much.

My opinion's slightly off-topic but relevant, in that I believe it would be hugely beneficial for almost all if the standing charge was fixed.  Whether that's £0 or £100 is irrelevant really, but if fixed then unit price could actually be compared between suppliers.

Nobody's suggesting that everyone should pay only a fixed amount, I don't understand why anyone's raised this as a serious suggestion that needs shooting down in fake flames.

I know I had a pop at analogies, as they did get strained beyond reality.  But let's take cars and petrol as a pretty relevant comparison.  You pay your road tax to the government, which pays the cost of maintaining the network.  When you want to choose a fuel supplier you can choose based upon unit prices alone, which are displayed clearly in massive numbers next to the road.  You don't pay randomly different road tax via the petrol station, depending on which petrol station you choose.  You don't need a computer to work out who's flogging the cheapest petrol at the moment, based on typing in your typical usage and a bunch of other nonsense.

[Deleted User]

wittynamegoeshere said:

Do people seriously think it's not a problem that vast numbers of consumers, probably the majority, don't actually knowing how much they're paying for an essential service that is probably their biggest annual bill?

It's certainly a problem - but not one that we should fix by just hiding the cost of some of the service elsewhere.  Do you seriously think that people are incapable of understanding the concept of a unit price and daily charge?  Call it "meter rental" if you want, perhaps people might find that simpler, but it really is a trivial concept.

wittynamegoeshere said:

This confusion only benefits the industry, by allowing them to keep customers who should have left them for a lower priced competitor but simply don't know that they're paying too much.

Whatever you do, many people don't compare, switch or even bother thinking about what you rightly identify as a massive expense.  A lot of those people won't suddenly start getting involved if they are comparing one number rather than two.

It's more beneficial to consumers as a whole to have a more accurate system (even if a trivial amount of extra complexity is needed) so that different tariffs, pricing models, payment arrangements etc can be offered and consumers can have choice to move where they want.  The answer to "people who don't understand don't switch" is to help them understand, not to dumb down the system for the already active participants. 

wittynamegoeshere said:

My opinion's slightly off-topic but relevant, in that I believe it would be hugely beneficial for almost all if the standing charge was fixed.  Whether that's £0 or £100 is irrelevant really, but if fixed then unit price could actually be compared between suppliers.

Nobody's suggesting that everyone should pay only a fixed amount, I don't understand why anyone's raised this as a serious suggestion that needs shooting down in fake flames.

erm...

busybee100

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.

Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?

Because you should be 😉

ariarnia

wittynamegoeshere said:

Do people seriously think it's not a problem that vast numbers of consumers, probably the majority, don't actually know how much they're paying for an essential service that is probably their biggest annual bill?.

yes. i just don't think getting rid of standing charges will improve the sitaution as i think the problem is the majority dont actually care enough about what there paying to do a comparison in the first place.

if you dont understand a fixed unit price covered by a monthly dd isnt the same as an all you can eat subscription then having or removing a fixed standing charge isnt going to make much of a difference and it will make things more expensive for the vast majority as well as reducing choice and competition. 

busybee100

wittynamegoeshere said:

Do people seriously think it's not a problem that vast numbers of consumers, probably the majority, don't actually know how much they're paying for an essential service that is probably their biggest annual bill?

This confusion only benefits the industry, by allowing them to keep customers who should have left them for a lower priced competitor but simply don't know that they're paying too much.

My opinion's slightly off-topic but relevant, in that I believe it would be hugely beneficial for almost all if the standing charge was fixed.  Whether that's £0 or £100 is irrelevant really, but if fixed then unit price could actually be compared between suppliers.

Nobody's suggesting that everyone should pay only a fixed amount, I don't understand why anyone's raised this as a serious suggestion that needs shooting down in fake flames.

I know I had a pop at analogies, as they did get strained beyond reality.  But let's take cars and petrol as a pretty relevant comparison.  You pay your road tax to the government, which pays the cost of maintaining the network.  When you want to choose a fuel supplier you can choose based upon unit prices alone, which are displayed clearly in massive numbers next to the road.  You don't pay randomly different road tax via the petrol station, depending on which petrol station you choose.  You don't need a computer to work out who's flogging the cheapest petrol at the moment, based on typing in your typical usage and a bunch of other nonsense.

Thank you.

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.

Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?

Because you should be 😉

There could still be a choice, but much less choice than possible under the existing system (without the dodgy effect of the price cap calculation). Less choice is not a good thing.

ariarnia

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.

Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?

Because you should be 😉

we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.

the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.  

not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?

busybee100

[Deleted User] said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.

Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?

Because you should be 😉

There could still be a choice, but much less choice than possible under the existing system (without the dodgy effect of the price cap calculation). Less choice is not a good thing.

For who?   

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

[Deleted User] said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.

we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.

there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?

OMG "lowest common denominator"😱

Don't let matelodave see that 🤬

If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"

Happy to help 😁

no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does. 

people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs. 

or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?

Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.

Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?

Because you should be 😉

There could still be a choice, but much less choice than possible under the existing system (without the dodgy effect of the price cap calculation). Less choice is not a good thing.

For who?   

For anyone who wants to be able to choose.