Campaign to ban Standing Charges

400ixl

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.

The SVT is the standard variable charge which is made up of the OFGEM prescribed daily standard charge and unit rate. It is the same for every provider and the only variable is that each region is slightly different, but again it is consistent across providers. That is the static baseline at the moment and has been for a year or so now.

From there you can choose to look at other elements if you wish but you will never be able to standardise elements such as cash back unless you outright ban them.

This thread is about whether the daily Standing Charge should exist in the SVT or whether it should be removed and added to the variable unit rate. This would advantage low users and second home owners and penalise standard and higher users.

ariarnia

busybee100 said:

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. 🤪

you accused me of stating facts in place of opinions and yet you laugh off that your doing exactly the same thing.

you are the one saying theres a problem with the daily charge that needs fixing.
you are implying (if not stating) it is a problem for more than a minority of people.
meaning you are arguing removing standing charges would help the majority of people. 

i dont see how thats possible so tell me your reasoning. 

BikingBud

[Deleted User] said:

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?

So is this just paid from the magic money tree then? Here was me thinking wholesale and transportation costs were part of my bill.

None of those pricing methods require commercial entities to operate them. 

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

[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.

That's what the entire thread has been about.  Removing the standing charge as a concept and having only a unit price.

You have repeatedly stated that this is a good thing because people who don't do comparisons because they don't understand the system would find it simpler and be able to do comparisons.

You have also said it is because they are disadvantaged.  Obviously, if they are still disadvantaged on your new system, they would not have benefitted and the problem would not, therefore, have been solved.  Anyone who doesn't move from disadvantaged to advantaged couldn't then be counted in your alleged majority that would benefit.

Anyone who doesn't compare now, and wouldn't compare on your new system is unaffected and irrelevant.  They also couldn't be counted in your alleged majority that would benefit.

Anyone who does compare now would, under your new system, lose the ability to choose between high sc/low ur, standard sc/ur and low sc/high ur tariffs.  You would be removing two of these three categories.  This is forcing them.  Again, these people couldn't be counted in your alleged majority that would benefit.

All that is left is the people that my statement covered. You would need to provide some pretty strong evidence (much stronger than your "I know some old people and they said it was hard" from earlier) to indicate that the remnants were, in fact, the majority that you claim.

Ignore the argument, misread the comment, and then accuse others of being disingenuous.  I know which playbook this is from. 🤷‍♂️

busybee100

400ixl said:

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.

The SVT is the standard variable charge which is made up of the OFGEM prescribed daily standard charge and unit rate. It is the same for every provider and the only variable is that each region is slightly different, but again it is consistent across providers. That is the static baseline at the moment and has been for a year or so now.

From there you can choose to look at other elements if you wish but you will never be able to standardise elements such as cash back unless you outright ban them.

This thread is about whether the daily Standing Charge should exist in the SVT or whether it should be removed and added to the variable unit rate. This would advantage low users and second home owners and penalise standard and higher users.

Thank you for that but were you asking about the SC or the SVT?

You said SVT but I've been talking about the SC and how we should simplify tariffs to make it easier for people to compare. I don't think who it affects should come into it.

[Deleted User]

BikingBud said:

Deleted_User said:

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?

So is this just paid from the magic money tree then? Here was me thinking wholesale and transportation costs were part of my bill.

None of those pricing methods require commercial entities to operate them. 

If you buy something from a supermarket, the cost of Eddie Stobart's lorries is part of the price.  It doesn't mean that the supermarket is responsible for (or has any input into) Eddie Stobart's decision to buy a new lorry.  The main difference in this case is that there is a regulator to whom Eddie Stobart would have to apply for permission to buy a lorry, and the regulator would then decide how much of the lorry's price would be charged back to you and over what period (which is necessary because nobody else is allowed to provide transportation for the supermarket in this analogy - a natural monopoly).

Wholesale costs are part of the unit price.  This isn't at issue here.

No pricing method requires a commercial entity to operate it.  There is, however, no reason or incentive for a single public entity to create more than one tariff or to do any form of innovation.  Can you really imagine a non-commercial supplier offering a wide range of tariff propositions from which people can choose their preference?  Offering multiple E7 variations depending on whether you were a heavy/mid/light night user?  Innovating the Octopus agile tariffs?

ariarnia

You said SVT but I've been talking about the SC and how we should simplify tariffs to make it easier for people to compare. I don't think who it affects should come into it.

i'm confused (easily done) are you saying you dont think it matters who your suggestion affects? 

so if 1 confused person understands comparisons but 10 people end up having to pay more you dont think that matters? especially as lower income and disabled users are less able to reduce there usage and so are more likely to be worse off with a higher unit rate?

i don't think thats what you mean but thats what it sounds like. 

[Deleted User]

Right, this thread is dead then.

No attempt to discuss the points any more, just thinly veiled accusations of harassment and pointless dictionary definitions.

Shame, because it was a relatively interesting discussion.

wittynamegoeshere

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 very sure that your circle is not representative of the population as a whole.

I'm from an academic background, I have absolutely no issue with spreadsheets, software, whatever.  But I have the ability to appreciate that I'm not typical.

There are plenty of people who can do lots of things I can't, e.g. build a wall, fix a car, paint a picture - but they probably couldn't form an algebraic equation.  That doesn't make me better than them, which is the tone I sense from many on here in a similar position.  Different people have different talents, numeracy is one among many.  I also appreciate that academics often lack in several other skills, particularly practical and human abilities.

pochase

wittynamegoeshere said:

Deleted_User said:

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?

I'll ignore your usual patronising and abrasive tone and give your response the constructive reply it doesn't deserve.

Lots of people shop around for insurance, hotels, petrol and tins of beans without using comparison sites.  For almost everything on the planet other than energy, most people do not use a comparison service, for the simple reason that they don't need one.

Almost everyone has to use a comparison site for switching energy, for the simple reason that it's not practically possible for people to compare without one.  This is due to the fact that the standing charge is muddled up together with the unit charge, which means that customers can not use the raw numbers to compare.

But I'm sure there'll be another bunch of muddled reasons about to be blasted back as to why everything must always stay as it is to keep things as they are, by the resident energy industry ex-employee and chums.

So how do you do a comparison of energy prices without using a comparison site? Are you going onto each supplier website and write down the details of the tariffs? Do you you really think that is easier and more people will do it than will go onto a comparison site?

I am more than able to do direct comparisons between suppliers/tariffs, but I always used comparison sites for my switches.

I don't care much how the relation between standing charge and unit rates is. I know my average usage and I just enter my post code, my electricity usage and my gas usage and I get a list of the best deals for me. 

Yes I would have a look at the unit rates, but what exactly do you need more than supplier A with tariff B costs you amount X, while the next cheapest supplier/tariff is amount Y. I would check who the supplier is and most likely would go for one of the big 6 even if they are slightly mor expensive just for security.

How can it be easier than entering three values to get a list of choices with the annual cost for each tariff based on your input? What does the customer need to understand here that not everybody with access to the internet can do?