Smart meters on the News - Being switched to prepayment without notice.

EssexHebridean

grn99 said:

It's more what they shouldn't do - switch those on smart meters to prepayment by the backdoor.

Right, yes, we’ve established that viewpoint (although there was no “backdoor” switching of people to prepayment - it involves lengthy periods of time and lot’s of notice being given) but my question still stands. You have a household that is not on the priority services register, and is in persistent and increasing energy debt - how does the energy supplier deal with the situation if not by switching those people to prepay? (Which might even save them a few pennies, ironically!) 

oldagetraveller1

"Those that still have open fires aren't allowed to burn cheap coal."

Not me, I am in a non smokeless area, buy and use the cheapest black sedimentary rock obtainable locally.

QrizB

Older documentation for my woodburner claims that it's dual fuel. Yet the latest manual says it's woodburner only The appliance hasn't change - just the info re usage.
We have plenty of wood to last years, but out of interest - could I legally burn coal? would it be cheaper than wood? and are dual fuel burners suitable for burning coal?

What make and model is your stove?

Wood burners and multifuel stoves have different internals.

• If yours has a grate and an ash pan, it's likely to be a multifuel stove and suitable for burning coal, anthracite or other solid fuels.
• If the fuel sits directly on the base of the stove, on a bed of its own ash, it's probably a wood burner and isn't suitable for other fuels.

Qyburn

Deleted_User said:

So out of interest - can I still burn coal legally as far as you're aware?

Yes. But your stove may not be suitable. A few multifuel stoves work OK with coal but for most it needs to be smokeless fuel. Price comparison depends on how much you pay for wood. Here's a chart with data for different fuels. You'd need to correct for your local pricing, for example I would be paying 24p/kg for wood. https://nottenergy.com/resources/energy-cost-comparison/

Chrysalis

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

[Deleted User]

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

mmmmikey

Looking to the future, I can't help feeling that if the norm was for every customer to have a smart meter on a PAYG tariff it would solve a lot of problems. There is no reason why those people who prefer a fixed monthly direct debit couldn't continue to do that, over-crediting the meter in the summer months so reducing the need to top it up in the winter. Those that prefer to pay the full amount monthly, or at any other random or fixed frequncy could do so exactly like PAYG customers do at the moment. Many of these existing customers (but certainly not all, I don't want to stereotype) will have smart meters because they have run up past debts by not understanding the difference between the DD and the bill and such reasons. PAYG meters work conceptually like PAYG smartphones and the concept is something most people can grasp and manage. Of course, restriciting access to credit will mean those in financial hardship will hit the awful place where they can't afford heating sooner, but I can't help thinking that this is probably a good thing. Much better to face the reality of the issue without a big debt you can't pay looming over you than without.

Chrysalis

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

Notice isnt the issue here, its the bypass of legal process.

Of course preventative actions are always preferable, but what happens here?  Fixed DD system allows debt to be built up quite easy.  The only preventative action I can think of as a short term measure is requiring a good credit history to be on fixed DD billing, or to restrict fixed DD to a very low debt balance at which point action is taken at a much earlier stage.  

[Deleted User]

Chrysalis said:

Deleted_User said:

Chrysalis said:

Ectophile said:

mr_stripey said:

Was covered in detail earlier this week but to to pick up on this point, I fail to see how not disconnecting someone could be inferred has "disconnection by the back door".

When someone is on a credit meter, but can't pay the bill, then disconnecting them for non payment involves a long process, and going through the courts.  The customer gets a chance to plead their case, and the energy company may find the court delays the disconnection.

Switch someone to prepayment, and as soon as they run out of credit on the meter (and run out of emergency credit), then the power goes off.  But it's called "self disconnection", so the energy company can deny any responsibility, and no court is involved.

So if you want to disconnect someone who simply can't pay, remotely switch them to prepayment, and their power will go off in a few days.

Well explained, it seems the fix for this is to still require a court order for remote changes to the smart meter.  The remote control should be a means of reducing physical labour but not bypassing the legal process.  So ofgem really has failed here (again) letting this happen.

That could be a decent fix - but I presume you mean changing someone onto prepayment remotely rather than needing a court order for every tariff change?

Has anyone actually got an example though, where a customer has been remotely changed onto prepayment without notice and without being in substantial debt that they have not agreed a plan to resolve?

This seems to be a stable door / horse thing again - surely the better answer is to deal with the situation before the customer is in massive debt, rather than worrying about what happens once they are?  Most of the media examples (of course, and not necessarily representative) have involved people who haven't paid their bill for several years and often haven't read their meter.

Notice isnt the issue here, its the bypass of legal process.

Of course preventative actions are always preferable, but what happens here?  Fixed DD system allows debt to be built up quite easy.  The only preventative action I can think of as a short term measure is requiring a good credit history to be on fixed DD billing, or to restrict fixed DD to a very low debt balance at which point action is taken at a much earlier stage.  

Well the thread title specifically said “without notice”, but ok, your argument might be different.

Most people with fixed DD appear to complain about building up too much credit, not easily building up debt.

I’m not sure how an alternative billing method solves the issue either. If there are no readings, there is still bill shock, and if someone isn’t paying their bill there is still debt.

I ask again, is there actually anyone who this has been applied to in the way that has been claimed (no notice / without warning / without any process) - all reports suggest not.

chris_n

[Deleted User] said:

I ask again, is there actually anyone who this has been applied to in the way that has been claimed (no notice / without warning / without any process) - all reports suggest not.

I think if there were any they would have been wheeled out on mainstream TV. I also think the people who are initially claiming this have not been engaging with their suppliers, not opening letters etc and having a judge rubber stamping the process in court would make little difference. I would also hope those on the priority services register have at least had a (as far as possible)  non threatening home visit, maybe in conjunction with another agency.