forced pre-payment meter ban

Brie

I do wish people would stop saying that PPMs are forced on customers who are "refusing to engage".  Many of them are not refusing at all. 

Many of them are not engaging but for a number of reasons.  Because they don't speak english or don't understand the bills (like a very large portion of the population).  Because they have kids and 3 jobs and are dealing with a garbage landlord and can't keep up with all the post that comes and stops them being able to sleep at night.  Because they're an 80something pensioner who has struggled trying to deal with finances ever since her husband of 60 years died and he'd always done the money stuff.  

By saying that they are "refusing to engage" it makes it sound like they are giving a finger to the energy company and purposefully deciding to increase their debt.  Rarely is that actually the case.

<rant over>

Scot_39

t0rt0ise said:

brewerdave said:

tifo said:

Mobtr said:

For a lot of companies installing a prepayment meter on a warrant was a very very last resort and only done if a customer didn’t pay & refused to engage.

Several letters, possibly phone calls, texts and site visits would be done first and if no response then a warrant would be sought. This would be over a period of several weeks, months even, as a pp meter wouldn’t be installed just because you haven’t paid your latest bill.

Letters are also sent advising a warrant is being applied for & the court the company has applied to Yes, mistakes are made, but if a customer refuses to engage, how is the company to know they are ‘vulnerable’.

All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay or if they can’t pay, get advice on what else can be done, charities, funds etc. 

"All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay". This doesn't work, they do what they want. They ask for a sum, if not, tough.

Some of the stories I've read ,suggest that the affordable repayment option offered by in debt customers, are frequently less than their actual usage - in other words they are going to continue to accumulate debt !

I've never understood how any supplier thinks that it's possible for someone in debt to come to a payment arrangement. If they could pay enough to cover use going forward they wouldn't have got into debt in the first place. Never mind them having to pay extra to pay off the debt. That's why the debtor doesn't bother to 'engage' with the supplier. There's no point. They can't pay. The prepayment meter is the only way the supplier will get paid and the customer will suffer hardship of one sort or another going forward. It's ever been thus. For the government to only just realise this is ridiculous.

There are meant to be checks and balances - internal to the companies - and ideally at the magistrates courts.

The difference is by some reports
Tge companies were failing in their duty (has Ofgem reported on BG yet ?)
And 
 magistrates were swamped with dozens and under pressure - and so encouraged not to review - but authorise by default.  According to at least one whistle blower.

Courts because they didn't sit as regularly also have Covid backlog issues - not just nhs.

People have always been put onto prepay - under Labour or Cons. Faux outrage makes them look good - reality in power a different issue.

Scot_39

Brie said:

I do wish people would stop saying that PPMs are forced on customers who are "refusing to engage".  Many of them are not refusing at all. 

Many of them are not engaging but for a number of reasons.  Because they don't speak english or don't understand the bills (like a very large portion of the population).  Because they have kids and 3 jobs and are dealing with a garbage landlord and can't keep up with all the post that comes and stops them being able to sleep at night.  Because they're an 80something pensioner who has struggled trying to deal with finances ever since her husband of 60 years died and he'd always done the money stuff.  

By saying that they are "refusing to engage" it makes it sound like they are giving a finger to the energy company and purposefully deciding to increase their debt.  Rarely is that actually the case.

<rant over>

Arguably not engaging for whatever reason is a failure to engage.

The energy companiesdon't know why people who don't respond aren't responding.

But the post above indicates that there response to those who do isn't exactly all that sympathetic at times either.

Some of the very groups you mention - pensioners, parents of young children, disabled etc are entitled to more protection than a standard customer.

But the reality is companies are often staffed by people under pressure to perform - and companies need to be paid.

So they only have so much time and patience for each case.

Edit "And I suspect numbers of staff haven't been increased in line with the numbers of those in debt" 


But in past - its taken years and £1000s in debt for some case to end in court.

diystarter7

Scot_39 said:

t0rt0ise said:

brewerdave said:

tifo said:

Mobtr said:

For a lot of companies installing a prepayment meter on a warrant was a very very last resort and only done if a customer didn’t pay & refused to engage.

Several letters, possibly phone calls, texts and site visits would be done first and if no response then a warrant would be sought. This would be over a period of several weeks, months even, as a pp meter wouldn’t be installed just because you haven’t paid your latest bill.

Letters are also sent advising a warrant is being applied for & the court the company has applied to Yes, mistakes are made, but if a customer refuses to engage, how is the company to know they are ‘vulnerable’.

All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay or if they can’t pay, get advice on what else can be done, charities, funds etc. 

"All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay". This doesn't work, they do what they want. They ask for a sum, if not, tough.

Some of the stories I've read ,suggest that the affordable repayment option offered by in debt customers, are frequently less than their actual usage - in other words they are going to continue to accumulate debt !

I've never understood how any supplier thinks that it's possible for someone in debt to come to a payment arrangement. If they could pay enough to cover use going forward they wouldn't have got into debt in the first place. Never mind them having to pay extra to pay off the debt. That's why the debtor doesn't bother to 'engage' with the supplier. There's no point. They can't pay. The prepayment meter is the only way the supplier will get paid and the customer will suffer hardship of one sort or another going forward. It's ever been thus. For the government to only just realise this is ridiculous.

There are meant to be checks and balances - internal to the companies - and ideally at the magistrates courts.

The difference is by some reports
Tge companies were failing in their duty (has Ofgem reported on BG yet ?)
And 
 magistrates were swamped with dozens and under pressure - and so encouraged not to review - but authorise by default.  According to at least one whistle blower.

Courts because they didn't sit as regularly also have Covid backlog issues - not just nhs.

People have always been put onto prepay - under Labour or Cons. Faux outrage makes them look good - reality in power a different issue.

Hi

A brill post. Sadly, too many see facts like this a headline grabbers and ignore the facts.

Getting into debt is a vicious circle and pre-payments only add to the burden.

People need to pay their bills but the suppliers need to understand that not everyone has the capacity to understand bills/letters and or read and write and a default action punishes many of the vulnerable that are uable to state their case. Shame on the suppliers .......

I guess soo that suppliers will bang on about smart meters means better control of your bills   no thanks as I'm keepig control
with the old style meter that is not messing up my readings, misunderstanding and driving us into debt with the utility lot


Thanks

EssexHebridean

Scot_39 said:

t0rt0ise said:

brewerdave said:

tifo said:

Mobtr said:

For a lot of companies installing a prepayment meter on a warrant was a very very last resort and only done if a customer didn’t pay & refused to engage.

Several letters, possibly phone calls, texts and site visits would be done first and if no response then a warrant would be sought. This would be over a period of several weeks, months even, as a pp meter wouldn’t be installed just because you haven’t paid your latest bill.

Letters are also sent advising a warrant is being applied for & the court the company has applied to Yes, mistakes are made, but if a customer refuses to engage, how is the company to know they are ‘vulnerable’.

All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay or if they can’t pay, get advice on what else can be done, charities, funds etc. 

"All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay". This doesn't work, they do what they want. They ask for a sum, if not, tough.

Some of the stories I've read ,suggest that the affordable repayment option offered by in debt customers, are frequently less than their actual usage - in other words they are going to continue to accumulate debt !

I've never understood how any supplier thinks that it's possible for someone in debt to come to a payment arrangement. If they could pay enough to cover use going forward they wouldn't have got into debt in the first place. Never mind them having to pay extra to pay off the debt. That's why the debtor doesn't bother to 'engage' with the supplier. There's no point. They can't pay. The prepayment meter is the only way the supplier will get paid and the customer will suffer hardship of one sort or another going forward. It's ever been thus. For the government to only just realise this is ridiculous.

There are meant to be checks and balances - internal to the companies - and ideally at the magistrates courts.

The difference is by some reports
Tge companies were failing in their duty (has Ofgem reported on BG yet ?)
And 
 magistrates were swamped with dozens and under pressure - and so encouraged not to review - but authorise by default.  According to at least one whistle blower.

Courts because they didn't sit as regularly also have Covid backlog issues - not just nhs.

People have always been put onto prepay - under Labour or Cons. Faux outrage makes them look good - reality in power a different issue.

Yes - it sounds very much like the checks weren’t being carried out - by one supplier at least and it may yet turn out to be more perhaps. I’d imagine that the warrants may always have at least at times been authorised in batches - but with a qualifying set of questions with which the supplier is meant to confirm that due process has been followed - whether there was just oversights in the case of BG or whether it was ignoring the processes we may well find out in due course. 

As you say, the switches to prepay are nothing new - and arguably for those who are genuinely in hardship and perhaps too scared to engage a remote switch of a smart meter is substantially less traumatic than a physical meter change possibly with forced entry. 

t0rt0ise said:

brewerdave said:

tifo said:

Mobtr said:

For a lot of companies installing a prepayment meter on a warrant was a very very last resort and only done if a customer didn’t pay & refused to engage.

Several letters, possibly phone calls, texts and site visits would be done first and if no response then a warrant would be sought. This would be over a period of several weeks, months even, as a pp meter wouldn’t be installed just because you haven’t paid your latest bill.

Letters are also sent advising a warrant is being applied for & the court the company has applied to Yes, mistakes are made, but if a customer refuses to engage, how is the company to know they are ‘vulnerable’.

All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay or if they can’t pay, get advice on what else can be done, charities, funds etc. 

"All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay". This doesn't work, they do what they want. They ask for a sum, if not, tough.

Some of the stories I've read ,suggest that the affordable repayment option offered by in debt customers, are frequently less than their actual usage - in other words they are going to continue to accumulate debt !

I've never understood how any supplier thinks that it's possible for someone in debt to come to a payment arrangement. If they could pay enough to cover use going forward they wouldn't have got into debt in the first place. Never mind them having to pay extra to pay off the debt. That's why the debtor doesn't bother to 'engage' with the supplier. There's no point. They can't pay. The prepayment meter is the only way the supplier will get paid and the customer will suffer hardship of one sort or another going forward. It's ever been thus. For the government to only just realise this is ridiculous.

Payment plans to clear debt are nothing new - and can work well in many cases. You only have to look at the huge number of people who get debt free using DMPs every year - it’s exactly the same principle. In some cases the amount actually being repaid can be really small too - but the very action of trying to sort the issue out shows willingness on the part of the person in debt, and that generally sits well with creditors as for the most part getting any of their money back is a good sign. Most people in debt, once they have acknowledged the debt are really keen to try to pay it off - and a payment plan alongside a well worked budget can be a good way of letting this happen.

It’s also quite optimistic to suggest that across the board people who aren’t engaging aren’t bothering because they can’t pay - as someone else has said there can be all sorts of reasons for someone not engaging, although a good number of the most common should be caught by the PSR. Then of course there are those who aren’t engaging because they quite simply have no intention of paying - they do exist, as unpalatable as it may be and indeed unimaginable to most of us here. 

Spoonie_Turtle

diystarter7 said:

Scot_39 said:

t0rt0ise said:

brewerdave said:

tifo said:

Mobtr said:

For a lot of companies installing a prepayment meter on a warrant was a very very last resort and only done if a customer didn’t pay & refused to engage.

Several letters, possibly phone calls, texts and site visits would be done first and if no response then a warrant would be sought. This would be over a period of several weeks, months even, as a pp meter wouldn’t be installed just because you haven’t paid your latest bill.

Letters are also sent advising a warrant is being applied for & the court the company has applied to Yes, mistakes are made, but if a customer refuses to engage, how is the company to know they are ‘vulnerable’.

All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay or if they can’t pay, get advice on what else can be done, charities, funds etc. 

"All a customer needs to do is contact their supplier to discuss their balance & set up an affordable arrangement to pay". This doesn't work, they do what they want. They ask for a sum, if not, tough.

Some of the stories I've read ,suggest that the affordable repayment option offered by in debt customers, are frequently less than their actual usage - in other words they are going to continue to accumulate debt !

I've never understood how any supplier thinks that it's possible for someone in debt to come to a payment arrangement. If they could pay enough to cover use going forward they wouldn't have got into debt in the first place. Never mind them having to pay extra to pay off the debt. That's why the debtor doesn't bother to 'engage' with the supplier. There's no point. They can't pay. The prepayment meter is the only way the supplier will get paid and the customer will suffer hardship of one sort or another going forward. It's ever been thus. For the government to only just realise this is ridiculous.

There are meant to be checks and balances - internal to the companies - and ideally at the magistrates courts.

The difference is by some reports
Tge companies were failing in their duty (has Ofgem reported on BG yet ?)
And 
 magistrates were swamped with dozens and under pressure - and so encouraged not to review - but authorise by default.  According to at least one whistle blower.

Courts because they didn't sit as regularly also have Covid backlog issues - not just nhs.

People have always been put onto prepay - under Labour or Cons. Faux outrage makes them look good - reality in power a different issue.

People need to pay their bills but the suppliers need to understand that not everyone has the capacity to understand bills/letters and or read and write and a default action punishes many of the vulnerable that are uable to state their case. Shame on the suppliers .......

This is where social support is supposed to come into play.  People should have the support they need to manage their bills so that this kind of thing doesn't happen.  

Not to get political but I'd suggest it's actually shame on the government for gutting social care, not the suppliers who are not supposed to have to be social workers on the side.

jbond

EssexHebridean said:

In some cases the amount actually being repaid can be really small too - but the very action of trying to sort the issue out shows willingness on the part of the person in debt, and that generally sits well with creditors as for the most part getting any of their money back is a good sign. 

Well, apparently unless you were/are BG, then it was a case of "we don't care what you're trying to pay back, if it doesn't suit us, then we're coming out to smash your door down and force a PP meter on you!  So there!" :-)

TheElectricCow

EssexHebridean said:

Payment plans to clear debt are nothing new - and can work well in many cases. You only have to look at the huge number of people who get debt free using DMPs every year - it’s exactly the same principle. In some cases the amount actually being repaid can be really small too - but the very action of trying to sort the issue out shows willingness on the part of the person in debt, and that generally sits well with creditors as for the most part getting any of their money back is a good sign. Most people in debt, once they have acknowledged the debt are really keen to try to pay it off - and a payment plan alongside a well worked budget can be a good way of letting this happen.

It’s also quite optimistic to suggest that across the board people who aren’t engaging aren’t bothering because they can’t pay - as someone else has said there can be all sorts of reasons for someone not engaging, although a good number of the most common should be caught by the PSR. Then of course there are those who aren’t engaging because they quite simply have no intention of paying - they do exist, as unpalatable as it may be and indeed unimaginable to most of us here. 

I don’t work in energy, but I am a part of a finance department for a fairly large company which involves customer billing/accounts/balances in practically the same sort of way energy accounts are handled.

I have to agree here, payment plans are usually a very useful tool for clearing what may otherwise be an unmanageable debt and the simple act of engagement is often enough to halt unpleasant proceedings for a time to make more permanent arrangements. I’ve seen instances where offers of just £5 a week or £10 per month against debt in the hundreds of pounds have been accepted as that’s what was affordable to the customer. Likewise I’ve also seen cases where people have declared they intend to withhold payments against a debt for for reasons completely unrelated to affordability (typically centred around a complaint or service issue they have).

MattMattMattUK

jbond said:

EssexHebridean said:

In some cases the amount actually being repaid can be really small too - but the very action of trying to sort the issue out shows willingness on the part of the person in debt, and that generally sits well with creditors as for the most part getting any of their money back is a good sign. 

Well, apparently unless you were/are BG, then it was a case of "we don't care what you're trying to pay back, if it doesn't suit us, then we're coming out to smash your door down and force a PP meter on you!  So there!" :-)

Prepayment meters fitted with a warrant do not involve the door being smashed in, they almost always involve a locksmith either picking or drilling the lock. 

jbond

MattMattMattUK said:

jbond said:

EssexHebridean said:

In some cases the amount actually being repaid can be really small too - but the very action of trying to sort the issue out shows willingness on the part of the person in debt, and that generally sits well with creditors as for the most part getting any of their money back is a good sign. 

Well, apparently unless you were/are BG, then it was a case of "we don't care what you're trying to pay back, if it doesn't suit us, then we're coming out to smash your door down and force a PP meter on you!  So there!" :-)

Prepayment meters fitted with a warrant do not involve the door being smashed in, they almost always involve a locksmith either picking or drilling the lock. 

You missed my humour there!