Campaign to ban Standing Charges

wittynamegoeshere

The fact that comparison websites even need to exist is in itself a clear sign that the "market" doesn't work.

Just charge everyone a fixed fee for the line, the amount doesn't matter as long as it's standard.  Then, on top, whatever unit rate their supplier offers for their units.  Then everyone can shop around based on unit rate, nobody needs uswitch and people will stop being intimidated by the whole thing and scared of making the wrong choice.

How things are is probably not an accident, the system is designed to be opaque so that people can't compare prices so the suppliers can get away with charging more and make more profits.

None of it matters anyway, our opinions are irrelevant.  Hopefully the next PM is actually bothered about representing the people instead of the energy industry.

[Deleted User]

wittynamegoeshere said:

The fact that comparison websites even need to exist is in itself a clear sign that the "market" doesn't work.

The fact that insurance comparison sites exist is a clear sign that the insurance market doesn't work.

The fact that hotel comparison sites exist is a clear sign that the hotel market doesn't work.

The fact that petrol price comparison sites exist is a clear sign that the petrol price market doesn't work.

Do you not see how much nonsense that is?

wittynamegoeshere said:

How things are is probably not an accident, the system is designed to be opaque so that people can't compare prices so the suppliers can get away with charging more and make more profits.

The system is designed to show the discrete costs and the continuous costs separately.  The suppliers didn't decide this.  Removing consumer choice is much more likely to result in suppliers charging more and making more profits.

wittynamegoeshere said:

None of it matters anyway, our opinions are irrelevant.  

True, because you just ignore them all and regurgitate the same statements.

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

Lol Were you all waiting to ambush me?

Give me a minute.

Shock.  Horror.

Engage in a discussion with many active participants and more than one of them happens to respond to a post!

Must be a conspiracy.

400ixl

wittynamegoeshere said:

Hopefully the next PM is actually bothered about representing the people instead of the energy industry.

Oh please, don't be such a drama queen! lol

If you are saying force every provider to use the same standing charge across every tariff and make it a fixed monthly cost rather than daily, then yep, that sounds workable and will help simplify explaining it whilst maintaining the equal sharing of the fixed rate costs. The difference will then be in what the unit rate is for each tariff.

The system was not designed to be opaque, they tried to allow suppliers the ability to provide tariffs that covered so many different types of consumer which was a mistake in a way, but equally those consumers should have been comparing like tariffs depending on the type of customer they were.

busybee100

400ixl said:

busybee100 said:

I didn't say they didn't understand comparisons. I said they think they're easy because they don't go in to detail.

Do you mean advantaged and disadvantaged as in financially?

If yes then I've not avoided the topic, I've said there will be winners and losers just as there is now.

Who says it's a minority?

You aren't making sense to me. If someone says they think comparisons are easy, it is most likely because they do understand them. Personally I have no issues understanding the comparisons, are you saying i didn't go into the detail. Its because I understand the detail, I know exactly what I use each month, by the month and can use that to look at all of the different tariffs and work out what that means from both a standing order and the unit cost.

So the complete opposite to what you seem to think. Of the people I know probably 70% of them know their position to enough detail to do clear comparisons. Probably 15% couldn't but don't really care and the other 15% would need quite a bit of hand holding to do it. So in my circle you are addressing a minority.

So who are the losers in the current way the SVT is done? Everyone pays an equal share of the fixed costs and then they pay for what they use. The only way they are winners or losers are their own habits or their environment, neither are to do with the way the rates are structured.

I'm replying to 400ixl first as they have been so patient.

Ok. So the thread is not about comparisons per sé but people kept saying the SC is one of two things. It isn't it's one of many things one can use to find a suitable tariff but it is one of the main components it is important. It's a while since I've done a comparison as, in my opinion, the markets been broken for a couple of years. Previously I would have used seasons (exit fees and terms), split tariffs, cash back and optimised the filters on uSwitch (can't remember all they were) and taken into account occupation for the planned term. 
I read my meters weekly and have done for approx 20 year so plenty of datum.

I cant speak of your breakdown I'm sure you know them well.

Is the SVT the SC? If yes then there is no standard, it's a different amount with different providers. It will make up a different proportion of the final bill depending on how many units are used, I usually hedge for a cold winter.
The losers would be people who are, in normal times, put off comparing the tariffs.

BikingBud

ariarnia said:

BikingBud said:

ariarnia said:

wild666 said:

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

the government will pay for it either way but the government doesn't have any money. the only money the governetm has is from the tax payer. the government can put up different taxes. one of the taxes are the levys in the standing charge (the ones that currently pay for green policies or the ones that pay for the network infrastructure. or vat). because the standing charge is a tax. so the government could put up income tax. or corporation tax (which would probably increase customer bills) or tell ofgem to include it in the standing charge. or increase vat or sin taxes and include the debt in the cost of all the other government debt paid for out of the tax pot. we don't know yet. the government has to find a lot of money over the next few years and if people are used to paying a higher rate of standing charge (and most don't know when it's 'supposed' to go back down) keeping it high to cover the additional costs would be tempting i think. 

The Government never pays, the taxpayer always pays and the consumer always pays so why not stop all the pretence about competition and nationalise the industry?

Comparison with phones or shopping are false as there are many choices that consumers can make, including do without, whereas the provision of utilities is essential to life. Why not use tax to cover the infra that is required to provide every household with the necessary connections and then regionalised distribution and  billing for the actual consumption?

if you want to talk about the pros and cons of nationalising utilities then i'm sure someone will be along shortly but as someone already said 'prove there's no competition'.

over the last 10 years we have regularly shopped around and fixed. we have always found a deal thats less than the standard variable rate and that has saved us money given our annual usage paterns. lots of choice to go for a lower standing charge and higher unit rate to suit us as a low use family. or for other people to go with a tariff that means they can charge their cars or storage heaters cheaply overnight. or time of use tariffs. or solar feed in tariffs. or 0 standing charge tariffs. a whole marketplace of diffent options from different providers.  

if you were talking about water and lack of competition i'd understand but if thats not what you would call consumer choice and competition then i'm not sure what is?  

(and while lots of shopping isn't essential there's also lots that is. food. clothing. phone and internet are often essential for getting and staying in work. especially with the pandemic. roads and cars/fuel is essential. )

And during that time we find that our service providers are now overseas companies and profits are being removed. The whole focus has been on profit rather than appropriate and timely investment to provide an effective service and in infra to have security of energy. 

Electric and gas are provided to required standards there are no variables to introduce and enable an effective and differing pricing regime. Food and phones on the other hand I can buy the cheapest or the most suitable for my circumstances, I can also decide that I don't want a phone or I only want to commit to buy cheaply and from Lidl/Aldi. I can source potatoes by the 1/2 Cwt sack direct from the farm shop or I can buy from Fortnum and Mason as I feel it is worth the extra to have them scrubbed and washed in glacial water or whatever else might enable them to charge an exorbitant price. I can buy and run a wreck from £1000 or aspire to an Aston Martin or Bentley, or even use a push bike or walk.

These are my choices and come with much greater freedom to ensure I get what suits my needs, my lifestyle and my pocket. The freedom of choice is not the same for the utilities, any perception of a free market is a false premise. 

busybee100

[Deleted User] said:

busybee100 said:

400ixl said:

busybee100 said:

I'm starting to think the people who think comparisons are easy don't go into the detail. 🤔

I would say the complete opposite. Those who understand them, probably do so in detail.

You do keep on avoiding the topic of do you believe that some should be advantaged and some disadvantaged as they will be by removing the standing charge, just to, in your view make it simpler for a minority, rather than educating?

I didn't say they didn't understand comparisons. I said they think they're easy because they don't go in to detail.

Do you mean advantaged and disadvantaged as in financially?

If yes then I've not avoided the topic, I've said there will be winners and losers just as there is now.

Who says it's a minority?

People that at the moment don't get involved with comparisons or switching, and are financially disadvantaged by this fact, whom, solely by removing the standing charge component of tariffs, would become involved and switch to a financially advantageous tariff (should one actually be possible when you remove many tariff possibilities)?

How could that be anything other than a minority?

And on the converse, forcing anyone who, at the moment, compares and switches between the wider range of tariffs potentially available, into a restricted and likely poorer choice.

You're adding words again so you can make it a minority. Actually looking at it, this is really disingenuous I didn't give half of those provisos.

No-one is forcing.

[Deleted User]

BikingBud said:

ariarnia said:

BikingBud said:

ariarnia said:

wild666 said:

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

the government will pay for it either way but the government doesn't have any money. the only money the governetm has is from the tax payer. the government can put up different taxes. one of the taxes are the levys in the standing charge (the ones that currently pay for green policies or the ones that pay for the network infrastructure. or vat). because the standing charge is a tax. so the government could put up income tax. or corporation tax (which would probably increase customer bills) or tell ofgem to include it in the standing charge. or increase vat or sin taxes and include the debt in the cost of all the other government debt paid for out of the tax pot. we don't know yet. the government has to find a lot of money over the next few years and if people are used to paying a higher rate of standing charge (and most don't know when it's 'supposed' to go back down) keeping it high to cover the additional costs would be tempting i think. 

The Government never pays, the taxpayer always pays and the consumer always pays so why not stop all the pretence about competition and nationalise the industry?

Comparison with phones or shopping are false as there are many choices that consumers can make, including do without, whereas the provision of utilities is essential to life. Why not use tax to cover the infra that is required to provide every household with the necessary connections and then regionalised distribution and  billing for the actual consumption?

if you want to talk about the pros and cons of nationalising utilities then i'm sure someone will be along shortly but as someone already said 'prove there's no competition'.

over the last 10 years we have regularly shopped around and fixed. we have always found a deal thats less than the standard variable rate and that has saved us money given our annual usage paterns. lots of choice to go for a lower standing charge and higher unit rate to suit us as a low use family. or for other people to go with a tariff that means they can charge their cars or storage heaters cheaply overnight. or time of use tariffs. or solar feed in tariffs. or 0 standing charge tariffs. a whole marketplace of diffent options from different providers.  

if you were talking about water and lack of competition i'd understand but if thats not what you would call consumer choice and competition then i'm not sure what is?  

(and while lots of shopping isn't essential there's also lots that is. food. clothing. phone and internet are often essential for getting and staying in work. especially with the pandemic. roads and cars/fuel is essential. )

And during that time we find that our service providers are now overseas companies and profits are being removed. The whole focus has been on profit rather than appropriate and timely investment to provide an effective service and in infra to have security of energy. 

Electric and gas are provided to required standards there are no variables to introduce and enable an effective and differing pricing regime. Food and phones on the other hand I can buy the cheapest or the most suitable for my circumstances, I can also decide that I don't want a phone or I only want to commit to buy cheaply and from Lidl/Aldi. I can source potatoes by the 1/2 Cwt sack direct from the farm shop or I can buy from Fortnum and Mason as I feel it is worth the extra to have them scrubbed and washed in glacial water or whatever else might enable them to charge an exorbitant price. I can buy and run a wreck from £1000 or aspire to an Aston Martin or Bentley, or even use a push bike or walk.

These are my choices and come with much greater freedom to ensure I get what suits my needs, my lifestyle and my pocket. The freedom of choice is not the same for the utilities, any perception of a free market is a false premise. 

You do know that the suppliers don't own any infrastructure and don't make capital investments?  It's not their role to build things to create security of energy.

Am I to read this that you think the only suitable option is a single unit price for each fuel, with no other variations?  After all, anything else would be a "differing pricing regime".  So no E7 tariffs, no heatwise, no ToU tariffs, no tiered rates...  Are we still allowed fixed vs variable, or is that also a false premise?

busybee100

ariarnia said:

busybee100 said:

400ixl said:

busybee100 said:

I'm starting to think the people who think comparisons are easy don't go into the detail. 🤔

I would say the complete opposite. Those who understand them, probably do so in detail.

You do keep on avoiding the topic of do you believe that some should be advantaged and some disadvantaged as they will be by removing the standing charge, just to, in your view make it simpler for a minority, rather than educating?

I didn't say they didn't understand comparisons. I said they think they're easy because they don't go in to detail.

Do you mean advantaged and disadvantaged as in financially?

If yes then I've not avoided the topic, I've said there will be winners and losers just as there is now.

Who says it's a minority?

who says it isn't?

Could be a long night. 🤪

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

400ixl said:

busybee100 said:

I didn't say they didn't understand comparisons. I said they think they're easy because they don't go in to detail.

Do you mean advantaged and disadvantaged as in financially?

If yes then I've not avoided the topic, I've said there will be winners and losers just as there is now.

Who says it's a minority?

You aren't making sense to me. If someone says they think comparisons are easy, it is most likely because they do understand them. Personally I have no issues understanding the comparisons, are you saying i didn't go into the detail. Its because I understand the detail, I know exactly what I use each month, by the month and can use that to look at all of the different tariffs and work out what that means from both a standing order and the unit cost.

So the complete opposite to what you seem to think. Of the people I know probably 70% of them know their position to enough detail to do clear comparisons. Probably 15% couldn't but don't really care and the other 15% would need quite a bit of hand holding to do it. So in my circle you are addressing a minority.

So who are the losers in the current way the SVT is done? Everyone pays an equal share of the fixed costs and then they pay for what they use. The only way they are winners or losers are their own habits or their environment, neither are to do with the way the rates are structured.

I'm replying to 400ixl first as they have been so patient.

Ok. So the thread is not about comparisons per sé but people kept saying the SC is one of two things. It isn't it's one of many things one can use to find a suitable tariff but it is one of the main components it is important. It's a while since I've done a comparison as, in my opinion, the markets been broken for a couple of years. Previously I would have used seasons (exit fees and terms), split tariffs, cash back and optimised the filters on uSwitch (can't remember all they were) and taken into account occupation for the planned term. 
I read my meters weekly and have done for approx 20 year so plenty of datum.

I cant speak of your breakdown I'm sure you know them well.

Is the SVT the SC? If yes then there is no standard, it's a different amount with different providers. It will make up a different proportion of the final bill depending on how many units are used, I usually hedge for a cold winter.
The losers would be people who are, in normal times, put off comparing the tariffs.

For someone who claims to have such a good understanding of the system, I hope this was a typo.  Although reading the rest of the paragraph, it seems not.