Electric

Mstty

Chunks said:

Just received my £200 in circumstances similar to the OP’s daughter. We are rural, no mains gas and are surrounded by houses that use oil, LPG or wood to heat their homes. We have an ASHP supplemented by a log burner. In my case, the government’s AFP eligibility tests are true in respect of mains gas but false in respect of main heating source, which is an ASHP. Might be bull manure, but my feeling is that the needed gov infrastructure (and cost therefore) to identify a relatively small number of households, off mains gas, using electricity as the main source of heating, makes cheaper to pay out to some ineligible households, like me and the OP’s daughter (least worse option, so to say). I rang my energy supplier (Octopus) asking if the payment was an error. They said it wasn’t. My dilemma is that there is no mechanism, that I have identified at least, to check (beyond what I have done so far) that it is ok to keep the benefit despite my ineligibility. I am looking for something official on the gov website and in the absence of same, a way to pay the money back. Any suggestions guys?

Like us you have got lucky or as we see it been rewarded for moving to a greener generator of heating in your house in an area predominantly fueled in the majority by oil/LPG etc.

We did check with Eon Next as well and following the comments across this board it was the cheapest way to implement this payment as a broad stroke.

What you now chose to do with this is up to you and we have already made that decision.

JamesPeter

 

Someone all electric (incl electric ASHP heating) in a village without gas asked on the eon.next community website if they had to repay the £200 and was told by eon.next staff that they don’t have to pay it back:

 https://community.eonnext.com/threads/6801-What-is-this-%C2%A3200-payment

It seems the government has accepted that some people who shouldn't be entitled (ie with electric heating) will receive the £200 due to being off the gas grid but in an arrea where other fuels are used predominantly. 

Lucky them!

Chunks

Thanks for your replies guys. Not doubting for a moment the validity of the points made, it would be good to access the official (resp. government department) written reasoning behind the system of distribution of AFP moneys, particularly in circumstances like ours. The official rules (which can be accessed) are very clear that two tests must be met - no exceptions. So a process that actually contradicts this, in circumstances I outlined, doesn’t seem right. Let’s say that the return of the AFP by households in circumstances like mine isn’t expected, officially or otherwise - no department exists for the return of AFPs paid ‘in error’. So, wishing to return my unexpected bounty might inadvertently cause government handling costs greater than the erroneous AFP. If true, I should take no action. As stated, my energy supplier verbally confirmed that the payment, which I had received, is valid but couldn’t say why.

dealyboy

Hi @Chunks ...

Chunks said:

Thanks for your replies guys. Not doubting for a moment the validity of the points made, it would be good to access the official (resp. government department) written reasoning behind the system of distribution of AFP moneys, particularly in circumstances like ours. The official rules (which can be accessed) are very clear that two tests must be met - no exceptions. So a process that actually contradicts this, in circumstances I outlined, doesn’t seem right. Let’s say that the return of the AFP by households in circumstances like mine isn’t expected, officially or otherwise - no department exists for the return of AFPs paid ‘in error’. So, wishing to return my unexpected bounty might inadvertently cause government handling costs greater than the erroneous AFP. If true, I should take no action. As stated, my energy supplier verbally confirmed that the payment, which I had received, is valid but couldn’t say why.

If you haven't already done so you may find the AFP threads on the LPG sub-forum worth a read, of course the longer ones and especially the MSE one re @Spoonie_Turtle p4 comments.

macman

If you don't want or need the payment, then donate it to a relevant charity. Maybe depher.com?
https://www.depher.com/

dunstonh

macman said:

If you don't want or need the payment, then donate it to a relevant charity. Maybe depher.com?
https://www.depher.com/

relevant charity will be the taxpayers that are funding this windfall bonus.

EssexHebridean

dunstonh said:

macman said:

If you don't want or need the payment, then donate it to a relevant charity. Maybe depher.com?
https://www.depher.com/

relevant charity will be the taxpayers that are funding this windfall bonus.

But in the circumstances that's not really possible, so better by far that people pop it to something like their local foodbank or similar, maybe. 

It does feel like yet again this has missed the mark as it seems that there are a fair number of people who are likely to get the AFP who could very reasonably be described as "affluent" or at the least comfortably off - but it comes back to the same issue as the EBSS payments doesn't it - it's more cost effective to just issue them than to make them targeted - at least spreading the net wider should increase the number of those who actually are in need who get them, even if it does mean that some will get the payment who probably, really shouldn't. 

macman

dunstonh said:

macman said:

If you don't want or need the payment, then donate it to a relevant charity. Maybe depher.com?
https://www.depher.com/

relevant charity will be the taxpayers that are funding this windfall bonus.

So, if they wish, they can donate it to HM Treasury. They are always grateful for any contributions.

Spoonie_Turtle

Chunks said:

Thanks for your replies guys. Not doubting for a moment the validity of the points made, it would be good to access the official (resp. government department) written reasoning behind the system of distribution of AFP moneys, particularly in circumstances like ours. The official rules (which can be accessed) are very clear that two tests must be met - no exceptions. So a process that actually contradicts this, in circumstances I outlined, doesn’t seem right. Let’s say that the return of the AFP by households in circumstances like mine isn’t expected, officially or otherwise - no department exists for the return of AFPs paid ‘in error’. So, wishing to return my unexpected bounty might inadvertently cause government handling costs greater than the erroneous AFP. If true, I should take no action. As stated, my energy supplier verbally confirmed that the payment, which I had received, is valid but couldn’t say why.

Here you can find the official rules.  Page 8 concerns eligibility for the automatic payment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1130933/domestic-alternative-fuel-payment-scheme-suppliers-guidance.pdf 

There are indeed two tests, but they may not be the ones you think.
1. not be on the mains gas grid
2. Live on an area where the census data says the predominant form of heating is not electricity.

Tool for 1.  https://www.xoserve.com/media/fadn4tnc/off-gas-live-postcodes2022.xlsx?term=Off-gas 
Tool to get an idea for 2. (England and Wales) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/census2021howhomesareheatedinyourarea/2023-01-05  - If you're off gas, see how many use electric in your area and compare with other methods.

People who don't qualify for the automatic payment will have to apply.  They will presumably have to meet two criteria, that they use an alternative fuel for their main hearing, and that they have not already had a payment (are not on the automatic eligibility list the gov made).

Chunks

Thanks again all. My issue is not that i can’t simply give away the benefit eg. to charity but rather what the official guidance/criteria is/are and can any sense be made of it. You can’t say on the one hand two tests must be met and then simply ignore them when the automatic payment is made, thereby riding roughshod over your own rules. Even the guidance (which I was already aware of and have reread a few times) uses catch all language in section 3 rendering the guidance as clear as mud. Seems to me that the practical and pragmatic steps needed to get the benefit out to those who are in desperate need of it will throw up anomalies (eg.my household). It is what it is.