Being "disconnected" as a prepayment customer

[Deleted User]

km1500 said:

Businesses should cost set the cost of their product by the amount you buy - so for example you buy one litre of fuel you pay for 1 litre or you use one unit of electricity and you pay for 1 unit of electricity

This is the big misunderstanding that causes the arguments. 

You use one unit of electricity, you pay your supplier for one unit of electricity.  That's it, it really is that simple.

You have one day of connection to the network, you have to pay someone for one day of connection to the network - it's still a product/service that you have taken, so there is still a cost.  It just happens that in the electricity industry, your supplier collects that cost on behalf of the company that you are actually paying it to, rather than you getting a bill from your supplier for the energy and then getting a second bill from the network for the connection.

Spoonie_Turtle

Did people have such massive problems with the principle of line rental, when 'line rental + call charges/call packages' were the standard?  
There's also usually a connection charge for broadband or fibre, and they've only moved away from the kind of 'connection charge + usage' model because data is SO cheap.  The prices are mainly based on bandwidth now.

Energy has gone in the opposite direction, it's far more expensive than it used to be.

theoretica

I guess charging electric cars (away from home) or getting gas or water in bottles are similar - you only pay for what you use (though there may be a bottle deposit factor) and have no standing charge. 

Brie

If, as some contend, a standing charge is to pay for the infrastructure then I do think that the poor are propping up the better off by having higher standing charge rates.  I've been meeting too many people recently who have effectively been disconnected as they are on prepayment meters, go to charge them, and then find all the money is used on the charges from previous days.  So they have no electricity.

If instead there was no standing charge then they could choose to go without electricity for some days or to extremely minimise their use in an effort to manage their finances.  They wouldn't be subsidising my desire to have green energy or whatever billing systems companies put into place for my benefit.

[Deleted User]

Brie said:

If, as some contend, a standing charge is to pay for the infrastructure then I do think that the poor are propping up the better off by having higher standing charge rates.  I've been meeting too many people recently who have effectively been disconnected as they are on prepayment meters, go to charge them, and then find all the money is used on the charges from previous days.  So they have no electricity.

If instead there was no standing charge then they could choose to go without electricity for some days or to extremely minimise their use in an effort to manage their finances.  They wouldn't be subsidising my desire to have green energy or whatever billing systems companies put into place for my benefit.

In the same way as a taxpayer who doesn't drive is subsidising the roads for those who do.  Or someone with children is having schools subsidised by someone that doesn't.  Or someone with private healthcare is still subsidising the NHS.

Or the overall general subsidy of "the poor" by "the rich" through tax bands etc.

The only difference is that these are not obvious in the same way.

EssexHebridean

The problem is, that the infrastructure directly benefiting those customers doesn't just go away on the days they choose not to use any energy. I could choose to use no gas at all for days and days - and indeed sometimes I do - but I still have a meter, there is still gas sitting there in the pipe available to use when I DO next want to use it, and the costs relating to having previously managed to SOLR process from a previous supplier that went bust, to ensure that I wasn't left adrift without the ability to use gas if I wanted to still need covering. If there is a major problem with a gas main outside of my property someone else will come along and sort that out, and then ensure that I am safe to use gas again once it IS sorted. Just because we choose (And I appreciate that for someone who cannot afford to top up a pre-pay meter it may not always be as straightforward as a "choice")  not to use something, there are still costs involved with it being available to us when we DO want to use it. 

Brie

I think it's easier to see the daily cost of something when it's more tangible.  I have to tax and insure my car and did so throughout the covid shut down even though I rarely used it.  My cost of petrol was minor as a result and has been creeping back up as things became more open.  

And yes I get the idea about the cost of a land line vs the cost of calls that someone has also mentioned.  I think the biggest difference to me is that I grew up with a phone where there was no charge for calls - just line rental.  Well yes - one paid for long distance calls as they were non standard which seemed completely reasonable.  It was weird for me to see where there was both line rental and paying to call someone down the block - big mind set change there!  That I now pay line rental that includes calling anywhere in the world is yet another mind shift.  

There are alternatives to having a car (take the bus, assuming one is available) or calling someone (go and knock on their door) but there's no alternative really to surviving in our society without electricity and, for most, gas.  Like water it should be considered a right, not a luxury.

deano2099

Brie said:

If, as some contend, a standing charge is to pay for the infrastructure then I do think that the poor are propping up the better off by having higher standing charge rates.  I've been meeting too many people recently who have effectively been disconnected as they are on prepayment meters, go to charge them, and then find all the money is used on the charges from previous days.  So they have no electricity.

If instead there was no standing charge then they could choose to go without electricity for some days or to extremely minimise their use in an effort to manage their finances.  They wouldn't be subsidising my desire to have green energy or whatever billing systems companies put into place for my benefit.

The flip side of this is that while it'd help those who use less power by necessity (poorer people) it'd also help those who use less power because they've invested in solar.