Pre-Paid Meters

Chrysalis

I would actually support pre paying been the cheapest method, the OP makes a ton of sense.  I certainly do not agree with a cost premium.  Someone in another community called it predatory, and I find it hard to disagree with that.  Ofgem have let something go here that they should have stamped on a long time ago.

Since a few of us hate forced SC as well, even something like this would be good.

Prepay = no SC, good for light users as well.
Variable DD = standard SC
Fixed DD (highest risk, higher levels of credit provided) = increased SC

Tiers available for fixed/variable DD that have no SC offset by higher unit rates.  Enforced by ofgem to be an option for light users.

GingerTim

Deleted_User said:

Ectophile said:

Deleted_User said:

The government has legislated to the point where it is impossible to stay alive without access to the national grid. Even cavemen had fire to keep warm and cook. We aren't allowed to burn green/scrap wood, coal etc.

That's because people want clean air that's fit to breathe.  We don't want to go back to the days of pea-soupers, just because a few selfish people want to burn any old rubbish in their fireplaces.

Yet if you were to take what I said in context you'd realize that I'm pointing out that the downside to stopping people from burning any old rubbish on their fireplace is that you MUST guarantee that the National Grid can provide affordable energy for everyone.

I would say to you that it would be INCREADIBLY selfish for the more affluent among us to demand clean air if it meant that poor families would freeze to death. 

Your desire for clean air is a first world issue. Many living in this country are facing third world problems. 

It's not a first world problem at all. Those living in more deprived areas of the UK already suffer disproportionately, in terms of damage to health and considerably lower life expectancy, owing to poor air quality. Allowing the burning of all sorts of crap would only widen health disparities between rich and poor.

MattMattMattUK

Deleted_User said:

Ectophile said:

Deleted_User said:

The government has legislated to the point where it is impossible to stay alive without access to the national grid. Even cavemen had fire to keep warm and cook. We aren't allowed to burn green/scrap wood, coal etc.

That's because people want clean air that's fit to breathe.  We don't want to go back to the days of pea-soupers, just because a few selfish people want to burn any old rubbish in their fireplaces.

Yet if you were to take what I said in context you'd realize that I'm pointing out that the downside to stopping people from burning any old rubbish on their fireplace is that you MUST guarantee that the National Grid can provide affordable energy for everyone.

I would say to you that it would be INCREADIBLY selfish for the more affluent among us to demand clean air if it meant that poor families would freeze to death. 

Your desire for clean air is a first world issue. Many living in this country are facing third world problems. 

You do seem to love hyperbole, people are not going to freeze to death because energy prices are not as cheap as they were a year ago. People will have to cut back on other elements of their life, they will have to keep their home at a cooler temperature than they did before. To begin to suffer from hypothermia most people need to be exposed to temperatures below 10c for several hours with inadequate clothing, as an example a thick duvet is enough to keep a naked person safe from hypothermia at an ambient temperature of 5c, actual freezing to death takes temperatures considerably lower.

Clean air is an issue that impacts us all, 28-36,000 deaths per year in the UK are attributed to air pollution. 1990-2018 less than 900 people died of hypothermia in the UK, which is the closest to your "freeze to death" we are going to get, the vast majority of those deaths were from exposure, not indoor deaths. With minimal heating homes in the UK are very unlikely to fall to a level where one could suffer from hypothermia, even with a very cold winter and no heating the chances of a home falling below a level where a reasonably clothed person would get hypothermia is incredibly low. That is not to say that cold temperatures cannot cause other issues, rises in respiratory disease, respiratory distress in those with asthma, increased mould can cause ill health, issues caused by damp etc. but the chances of "freezing to death" are incredibly low.

People are not facing third world problems and talk of "freezing to death" is hysterical hyperbole. 

MattMattMattUK

Deleted_User said:

Jyana said:

Deleted_User said:

Jyana said:

Deleted_User said:

MightyTache said:

I find it illogical that those that pay in advance for their energy, at zero risk to the provider, actually pay almost twice as much as those paying by monthly DD or in arrears.  
Those most at risk in our society pay more!  Surely paying for energy in advance via a pre-paid meter should be the cheapest way to buy energy!  

To help those most in need a campaign to address this would have the biggest impact.

Someone has posted EDF tariffs elsewhere and they ARE correct. Prepayment tariffs are now cheaper - but only if you use a few kwh a day. 

Most people think DD is cheapest as that's what's been heavily pushed by Martin Lewis and the media. But somewhere along the line they've changed the tariffs without most people realizing. 

My guess is that the NEED most people on DD because their business model relies on it. Which is why it's being kept quiet and made difficult for those of us trying to switch. 

But in this case - it looks like they have done the right thing tariff wise re the people that they've switched due to debt problems.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/26/is-it-cheaper-to-pay-for-energy-by-prepayment-meter-or-direct-debit-17248854/

Once again, as pointed out to in that very thread by other people, you are getting the bolded piece information totally wrong. Is it on purpose, or do you skim everything you read so that the correct information doesn't actually stay in your head? Either way, it kind of explains a lot.

I'm not sure what you're on about? The standing charge is higher but the unit rate is cheaper. Therefore it is only a cheaper tariff if you use enough units.

Why not calmly say what you disagree with and explain why? Do you accept that a higher standing charge will negate the benefit of a cheaper unit rate if you don't use  much energy? Do you think I'm mistaken about the standing charge? Or do you think I haven't explained clearly enough what I mean?

Yes exactly, if you use enough units. Not a few - which is a small amount.

You only need to use a small amount. I don't recall the exact number but as long as you use a few units a day pre-payment is cheaper. But if you use just one or two a day you'd be better off on DD. 

The break even point for PAYG vs Direct Debit is around 4 units a day. Using your example of someone who uses two units a day, being in PAYG would cost them an extra 1.8p per day, however to use two or fewer kWh per day would require someone to either have a huge amount of solar, or run almost nothing on electricity beyond a few LED lightbulbs. At very low usage levels it is possible for PAYG to be more expensive, but irrelevantly so with current pricing. 

chris_n

Deleted_User said:

GingerTim said:

Deleted_User said:

Ectophile said:

Deleted_User said:

The government has legislated to the point where it is impossible to stay alive without access to the national grid. Even cavemen had fire to keep warm and cook. We aren't allowed to burn green/scrap wood, coal etc.

That's because people want clean air that's fit to breathe.  We don't want to go back to the days of pea-soupers, just because a few selfish people want to burn any old rubbish in their fireplaces.

Yet if you were to take what I said in context you'd realize that I'm pointing out that the downside to stopping people from burning any old rubbish on their fireplace is that you MUST guarantee that the National Grid can provide affordable energy for everyone.

I would say to you that it would be INCREADIBLY selfish for the more affluent among us to demand clean air if it meant that poor families would freeze to death. 

Your desire for clean air is a first world issue. Many living in this country are facing third world problems. 

It's not a first world problem at all. Those living in more deprived areas of the UK already suffer disproportionately, in terms of damage to health and considerably lower life expectancy, owing to poor air quality. Allowing the burning of all sorts of crap would only widen health disparities between rich and poor.

You miss the point. You only start caring about quality of air when you have other more important needs (such as heat) satisfied. Three are places in the world where wood is still used for cooking, heating etc - but not in the first world.

Is where I live not in the first world (Austria). Many people heat with wood, many mainly traditional properties have ovens and sometimes stove tops powered by wood. My son has the option of cooking with wood or electricity in his house. As far as the pollution goes when air pressure is high and the weather is cold you can see the smog from all of this wood burning (and traffic) hanging in the main valley that runs through Tirol.

EssexHebridean

MattMattMattUK said:

<snip>

People are not facing third world problems and talk of "freezing to death" is hysterical hyperbole. 

It's Daily Fail style clickbait wording isn't it - common amongst readers of that particular rag I suspect as they are used to that sort of use of language as standard. "freezing to death" is an emotive phrase to start with. Combine it with "poor families" and certain elements of the media can give the illusion of being concerned about those in fuel poverty while actually trying to plug whatever their own agenda is at the time. The worrying thing is that we're really beginning to see the effects of this sort of scaremongering media on previously rational people - it's concerning the impact that it can have. 

EssexHebridean

I don't know anyone that had health problems due to smog and smoke burning. My parents generation seemed to live longer and healthier (contrary to what the stats show us). My mum grew up in London and lived through the pea soup smogs.

I can't decide whether this comes under the heading of "deliberate misinformation" or just simple ignorance - although it's hard to imagine how anyone who grew up with family who lived through the London smogs - and particularly "the big one" could remain ignorant of its effects - I know I (younger than the individual by a bit over 10 years) certainly grew up well and truly knowing about this thanks to parents and grandparents telling me about it.

Some facts about this can be found at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/case-studies/great-smog#:~:text=About%204%2C000%20people%20were%20known,it%20could%20be%20many%20more.&text=Press%20reports%20claimed%20cattle%20at%20Smithfield%20had%20been%20asphyxiated%20by%20the%20smog.

And as a TL:DR - from the same source: 



As a reminder - this was an event that continued for less than a week. 

If anyone is interested to know more, there was a rather good recent documentary on the subject called "The Great Killer Smog" - as can be seen from the above, that title isn't as hyperbolic as it might first appear.