forced pre-payment meter ban

EssexHebridean

MattMattMattUK said:

jbond said:

EssexHebridean said:

Sometimes it's not so much "can't pay the bills" as "don't realise how they can pay the (priority) bills" - the number of people who don't realise that paying their utilities bills is way more important than paying credit cards for example is awful - we need more education around this really basic stuff. Priorities for payment of bills is information that people should leave school knowing, IMO. 

Really?  How?
If you don't pay your credit cards, you can end up with a default on your credit file, which lasts for 6 years.  I assume it is the same for utilities?  If not, how does that work?
Yes, you can ultimately be cut-off, but which is worse, being cut-off or getting a default?

You will get defaults from the energy companies as well, being cut off would be worse than getting a default but primary utilities (water and energy) will almost never be cut off though. 

Some lenders view utility defaults as worse than card defaults, along the same lines that rent (where recorded) or mortgage defaults are seen as far worse than other defaults. 

Matt pretty much sums it up. 

A default is often far from being the disaster that it's widely dressed up to be.  Someone with defaults can still access new mortgage deals for example - albeit often only from their current provider, but they will mostly be cut off at least initially from new consumer credit - and this can be a good thing where someone has fallen into the habit of relying on credit to fund "wants" - surprisingly common in these days of use of credit cards for non essentials being so normalised. A default on a credit card means that interest stops, and any payments made towards the debt then have a far greater effect. Even where credit is being used for example to buy food it's often possible to adjust the budget and reprioritise meaning someone can then afford to pay the stuff that is actually important, not the stuff they *think* is important. 

It's the reason why there is a clear hierarchy of priority debts - beginning with housing (rent or mortgage/council tax) and going on down through food, utilities through costs relating to transport needed to get to work and other genuine "needs" and with unsecured consumer debt right at the bottom. It reflects the fact that the roof over your head should be the priority, and then the things we need to stay healthy. It is also the reason why it is almost never a good idea to turn unsecured debt into secured! 

jbond

Mobtr said:

Unfortunately at the moment, due to the increased costs in energy, food, fuel etc people need to prioritise their spending. 

I used to work for an energy company where debt was accrued & we would get a list of outgoings from Stepchange or CAB or similar company. It would give the monthly income & the out goings. On a regular basis we would see monthly outgoings of hair, nails, clothes, socialising, several mobile phones & other non necessities & then a bit at the bottom saying they can afford £5 per month towards their energy debt which would be £100’s or even £1000’s. 

I’m sorry, and this may seem harsh, but people need to live according to their means. Just because you’ve always been able to get your hair trimmed every month, or go out several times a month doesn’t mean you still should to the detriment of paying your bills. 

Yes there are genuine people who are really struggling & they need to be helped as much as possible but there are also a lot of people who can pay their bills but prefer to spend the money on other things 

I didn't want to start getting political, but I see comments similar to this on a regular basis.  Usually from idiots who read the like of the Scum and DM.  I think it's important, for balance, to point out that MOST people are NOT like this!
Benefits claimants are very often referred to as scroungers, dossers etc, but what many people, including perhaps this poster, might not know (even they apparently had dealings with CAB), is that benefit fraud is a tiny minority compared to genuine claimants, and even tax fraud is far more common than benefit fraud, but the media would rather you not know this.
Mobile phones are actually needed nowadays to claim UC.  I'm surprised someone like you, doesn't seem to know that?

Mobtr

jbond said:

Mobtr said:

Unfortunately at the moment, due to the increased costs in energy, food, fuel etc people need to prioritise their spending. 

I used to work for an energy company where debt was accrued & we would get a list of outgoings from Stepchange or CAB or similar company. It would give the monthly income & the out goings. On a regular basis we would see monthly outgoings of hair, nails, clothes, socialising, several mobile phones & other non necessities & then a bit at the bottom saying they can afford £5 per month towards their energy debt which would be £100’s or even £1000’s. 

I’m sorry, and this may seem harsh, but people need to live according to their means. Just because you’ve always been able to get your hair trimmed every month, or go out several times a month doesn’t mean you still should to the detriment of paying your bills. 

Yes there are genuine people who are really struggling & they need to be helped as much as possible but there are also a lot of people who can pay their bills but prefer to spend the money on other things 

I didn't want to start getting political, but I see comments similar to this on a regular basis.  Usually from idiots who read the like of the Scum and DM.  I think it's important, for balance, to point out that MOST people are NOT like this!
Benefits claimants are very often referred to as scroungers, dossers etc, but what many people, including perhaps this poster, might not know (even they apparently had dealings with CAB), is that benefit fraud is a tiny minority compared to genuine claimants, and even tax fraud is far more common than benefit fraud, but the media would rather you not know this.
Mobile phones are actually needed nowadays to claim UC.  I'm surprised someone like you, doesn't seem to know that?

I do know that but is it really necessary to have the latest phones on a very high monthly cost? I didn’t mention anything to do with anyone on benefits apart from saying anyone who is in genuine need should get all the help they can. I’m talking mainly about the ones who can afford there bills but chose to prioritise their lifestyle over paying their bills. I once had a case where customer crying on the phone as couldn’t pay her bill. Advised her to go to CAB  to apply for energy fund, note on the account few weeks later from CAB saying was rejected as income £1800 p/m, outgoings £800 p/m so she had £1000 disposable income per month & she was saying she couldn’t pay her bill. These are not uncommon as much as you would like them to be 

badmemory

The Priority Services Register is no protection.  It is supposed to protect you from being contacted for various selling practices & other contacts, it doesn't.  These companies ignore it when they see fit even if you have absolutely no debt with them.

diystarter7

MattMattMattUK said:

diystarter7 said:

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. 

Hi

A contradiction in your posting, so are you say they do force open doors or don'T

Quote:  "do not involve the door being smashed in"
" they almost always involve a locksmith either picking or drilling the lock." 

It's a fact that even a locksmith can fail to open/drill a lock and the door has to be forced open and therefore creating damage.

I have no reason to doubt what the poster you quoted stated as it is their personal experience,



Thanks

diystarter7 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!" :-)

Hi OP

Sorry about that and it must have been very distressing. Let us all hope the new rules stop this kind of unnecessary turmoil.

Thnaks

The other poster said they were joking.

diystarter7 said:
It's a fact that even a locksmith can fail to open/drill a lock and the door has to be forced open and therefore creating damage

Doors do not get smashed in, locks get picked or drilled. If the drilling fails the first time they just get a bigger drill, they have tools to cut chains if they are applied, however chains would only be applied if someone was in and if bailiffs and police arrive at a premises and are serving a warrant then locking the door, putting the chains on and refusing to open the door would be the worst course of action one could take. 

I was not aware re "joking" as there was nothing to indicate that from your thread. 

Thnaks

EssexHebridean

badmemory said:

The Priority Services Register is no protection.  It is supposed to protect you from being contacted for various selling practices & other contacts, it doesn't.  These companies ignore it when they see fit even if you have absolutely no debt with them.

I don't believe that is a standardised part of what the PSR is supposed to cover. 

Ofgems details on the PSR can be found here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/getting-extra-help-priority-services-register

diystarter7

jbond said:

I was joking about the "smashing the doors in" bit, that usually only happens with police drug raids (not from my experience).
If entry is being refused, I've seen on TV where locksmiths are employed to drill the lock, but I can't remember whether that was due to bills not being paid or rent not being paid, but the same process happens anyway.

Hi

No worries I was not aware of that. I guess you have to make the best out of a sad situation like this

pochase

badmemory said:

The Priority Services Register is no protection.  It is supposed to protect you from being contacted for various selling practices & other contacts, it doesn't.  These companies ignore it when they see fit even if you have absolutely no debt with them.

Do you maybe mean the "preference services" where you can opt out being contacted by email/phone/fax?

jbond

Mobtr said:

I do know that but is it really necessary to have the latest phones on a very high monthly cost? I didn’t mention anything to do with anyone on benefits apart from saying anyone who is in genuine need should get all the help they can. I’m talking mainly about the ones who can afford there bills but chose to prioritise their lifestyle over paying their bills. I once had a case where customer crying on the phone as couldn’t pay her bill. Advised her to go to CAB  to apply for energy fund, note on the account few weeks later from CAB saying was rejected as income £1800 p/m, outgoings £800 p/m so she had £1000 disposable income per month & she was saying she couldn’t pay her bill. These are not uncommon as much as you would like them to be 

Re first highlight - you didn't have to, your comment came close enough for me to make comments that I completely stand by.

Re last highlight - I'm not sure what you're inferring here?  Are you saying that what I wrote, I just wanted to believe that, or are you saying something else?

MattMattMattUK

jbond said:

Mobtr said:

I do know that but is it really necessary to have the latest phones on a very high monthly cost? I didn’t mention anything to do with anyone on benefits apart from saying anyone who is in genuine need should get all the help they can. I’m talking mainly about the ones who can afford there bills but chose to prioritise their lifestyle over paying their bills. I once had a case where customer crying on the phone as couldn’t pay her bill. Advised her to go to CAB  to apply for energy fund, note on the account few weeks later from CAB saying was rejected as income £1800 p/m, outgoings £800 p/m so she had £1000 disposable income per month & she was saying she couldn’t pay her bill. These are not uncommon as much as you would like them to be 

Re first highlight - you didn't have to, your comment came close enough for me to make comments that I completely stand by.

Re last highlight - I'm not sure what you're inferring here?  Are you saying that what I wrote, I just wanted to believe that, or are you saying something else?

You seem to be insinuating that anyone who mentions people living beyond their means is benefits bashing, that is not the case. There are many people who choose to live beyond their means and then refuse to pay essential bills, there are also those who cannot make ends meet no matter how much they cut back, the former I have no sympathy for, the latter should absolutely be helped.