Ofgem to increase Winter Price Cap to cover cost of people not paying their bills.

pochase

If the customer has a fixed amount of money, and is supposed to pay for the ongoing cost and repay a debt it does not matter at all if it is a prepaid meter or a debit meter at all as long as unit rates and standing charges are the same.

So why would somebody have to self disconnect on a prepaid meter, but will be able to pay on a credit meter with the same money available to them? 

With the DWP dictating how much the energy company gets based not just on the bill but on what money that leaves the person to live on.

In other words if the person uses more energy than they can afford it is up to everybody else to pay for them as they don't have to pay for allof the energy? 

Where is the other way of debt recovery you are promoting instead of the increase in cap, if you are saying the customer should not have to pay for teh current consumption if they don't have enough money?

matt_drummer

Deleted_User said:

pochase said:

If as you say the energy supplier is able to recover the debt by other means from a vulnerable person, why would the prepaid meter force the vulnerable person to self disconnect?

Either they have the money to pay the debt or they don't. As has been emntioned the repayment of the debt on prepaid is often as low as £3 per month. 

Because PP meters are used to side step the law on disconnecting vulnerable people. And are used instead of repayment systems where the amount paid is dictated by law to in theory ensure the person has enough to live on. 

If you do not put money into a prepayment meter you do not get electricity. So lack of money causes self disconnection. Despite disconnection by the supplier being against the law for vulnerable people, due to health consequences. 

And if debt is being recovered by other means for example a direct deduction from welfare benefits then after debt repayment you are supposed to have enough money left for other essentials like food. The amount of deductions is limited by law. 

And for those people on welfare benefits incapable of managing their own money the DWP can manage utility bill payments for them. With the DWP dictating how much the energy company gets based not just on the bill but on what money that leaves the person to live on. And the money paid to the person can be paid split into smaller amounts for example weekly rather than for example in a monthly lump sum.

Who manages how much energy they consume?

As an example, I don't use any more gas and electricity than I can pay for.

Do the DWP limit how much energy customers in these circumstances can consume, can they, or should they, be allowed to use as much as they like?

If a consumer hasn't paid for past use as they cannot afford to pay, and they carry on using more than they can pay for, doesn't the debt just grow?

debitcardmayhem

matt_drummer said:

Who manages how much energy they consume?

As an example, I don't use any more gas and electricity than I can pay for.

Do the DWP limit how much energy customers in these circumstances can consume, can they, or should they, be allowed to use as much as they like?

If a consumer hasn't paid for past use as they cannot afford to pay, and they carry on using more than they can pay for, doesn't the debt just grow?

What I don’t understand is what is the definition of vulnerable, someone suggested that having my thermostat at 22 degrees is stupid, but when someone has terminal cancer it’s a no brainer. Now perhaps financially poor is the only definition of vulnerable then so be it, I will pay my bills no matter, because we can at the moment. I am also surprised that there are no more calls to tax the rich on this thread, apart Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe from a manc. Tax the oil companies because they invaded Ukraine after all, perhaps the early wind farms needed the subsidies, I could go on, but having read this threads last 8 pages on an iPad and couldn’t quote many of the things I needed to. Sorry bit of a rant but hey money is not a guarantee of health. Now when will we ever get our export MPAN ☹️

matt_drummer

debitcardmayhem said:

matt_drummer said:

Who manages how much energy they consume?

As an example, I don't use any more gas and electricity than I can pay for.

Do the DWP limit how much energy customers in these circumstances can consume, can they, or should they, be allowed to use as much as they like?

If a consumer hasn't paid for past use as they cannot afford to pay, and they carry on using more than they can pay for, doesn't the debt just grow?

What I don’t understand is what is the definition of vulnerable, someone suggested that having my thermostat at 22 degrees is stupid, but when someone has terminal cancer it’s a no brainer. Now perhaps financially poor is the only definition of vulnerable then so be it, I will pay my bills no matter, because we can at the moment. I am also surprised that there are no more calls to tax the rich on this thread, apart Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe from a manc. Tax the oil companies because they invaded Ukraine after all, perhaps the early wind farms needed the subsidies, I could go on, but having read this threads last 8 pages on an iPad and couldn’t quote many of the things I needed to. Sorry bit of a rant but hey money is not a guarantee of health. Now when will we ever get our export MPAN ☹️

The rich are taxed, and the not so rich.

I pay a lot of tax and I am not rich.

Taxing rich people more will not solve the problems, they are already taxed, we are all taxed more than we have been for seventy years.

There aren't enough rich people to tax to solve the issues, focussing on people that have more than most of us won't solve our problems.

We don't have enough tax payers in our country, we have too many net takers and too many inefficiencies in what our money is spent on.

dealyboy

I don't know why but when I think of a vulnerable person I think of someone who is unhappy, perhaps clinically depressed or suffering loss, not a willful selfish person. One way or another (perhaps via a support agency) a supplier should know that a customer is vulnerable.

People who are coping or managing to overcome a problem also need to be supported. If the customer has kept the supplier informed and negotiated an arrangement then pre-payment should not be applied.

No, the category of people who should be on pre-payment meters are those who have not discussed or furnished any information to the supplier, and have just failed to pay without reason. I don't want to pay a standing charge element to cover the supplier's loss, I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

matt_drummer

dealyboy said:

 I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

You really think they will have assets?

dealyboy

@matt_drummer said:

dealyboy said:

 I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

You really think they will have assets?

Well the stereotype suggests the willful 'couldn't give a d**n' non-payer has assets aplenty ... TV, expensive car, jewelry, smartphone ... I'll leave others to add to the list. Whether they've been paid for though, hmmm, so maybe the answer to your question is no. So what do you think Matt ?

Spoonie_Turtle

dealyboy said:

I don't know why but when I think of a vulnerable person I think of someone who is unhappy, perhaps clinically depressed or suffering loss, not a willful selfish person. One way or another (perhaps via a support agency) a supplier should know that a customer is vulnerable.

At risk of going off-topic here bit most disabled people are classed as vulnerable, for various reasons.  Financially the price tag can be shocking*.  But you might also be surprised to hear that many of us live joyful lives where we have the right support and access barriers removed to do so.  Of course if we are struggling financially that can take a toll, but just being disadvantaged due to the world being inaccessible for us (including the medical system, that's actually one of the worst parts of being disabled) does not mean we are automatically miserable and suffering.  

*https://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/extra-costs/disability-price-tag-2023/

Not all vulnerable people are disabled, obviously; many are but not all.  Some are vulnerable due to financial circumstances beyond their control (never had enough support or anyone to remove various barriers placed in their way by a fundamentally unjust societal systems), some are temporarily vulnerable due to bereavement, acute illness, major damage to the home, or other life stressors.  Some people have escaped abusive homes and are both emotionally and financially vulnerable.  Some are still in abusive homes and are unable to make any changes to energy usage, payments, or engage with the supplier for help - and whether the abuser or abused person is the account holder, the abused person/s in that household will suffer consequences. 

That last scenario is not something the suppliers can be expected to know though, to be fair, unlikely the abused person/s can safely tell them about it.  But for other types of long-term vulnerability, the supplier would expect the person to be on the PSR and thus would know from that.

matt_drummer said:

dealyboy said:

 I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

You really think they will have assets?

Wilful non-payers might, those who simply decide not to pay rather than those who actually can't.  It's probably not helpful to assume they all would though.

matt_drummer

dealyboy said:

@matt_drummer said:

dealyboy said:

 I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

You really think they will have assets?

Well the stereotype suggests the willful 'couldn't give a d**n' non-payer has assets aplenty ... TV, expensive car, jewelry, smartphone ... I'll leave others to add to the list. Whether they've been paid for though, hmmm, so maybe the answer to your question is no. So what do you think Matt ?

If they have got any assets, they won't be there when the bailiffs come!

matt_drummer

Spoonie_Turtle said:

dealyboy said:

I don't know why but when I think of a vulnerable person I think of someone who is unhappy, perhaps clinically depressed or suffering loss, not a willful selfish person. One way or another (perhaps via a support agency) a supplier should know that a customer is vulnerable.

At risk of going off-topic here bit most disabled people are classed as vulnerable, for various reasons.  Financially the price tag can be shocking*.  But you might also be surprised to hear that many of us live joyful lives where we have the right support and access barriers removed to do so.  Of course if we are struggling financially that can take a toll, but just being disadvantaged due to the world being inaccessible for us (including the medical system, that's actually one of the worst parts of being disabled) does not mean we are automatically miserable and suffering.  

*https://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/extra-costs/disability-price-tag-2023/

Not all vulnerable people are disabled, obviously; many are but not all.  Some are vulnerable due to financial circumstances beyond their control (never had enough support or anyone to remove various barriers placed in their way by a fundamentally unjust societal systems), some are temporarily vulnerable due to bereavement, acute illness, major damage to the home, or other life stressors.  Some people have escaped abusive homes and are both emotionally and financially vulnerable.  Some are still in abusive homes and are unable to make any changes to energy usage, payments, or engage with the supplier for help - and whether the abuser or abused person is the account holder, the abused person/s in that household will suffer consequences. 

That last scenario is not something the suppliers can be expected to know though, to be fair, unlikely the abused person/s can safely tell them about it.  But for other types of long-term vulnerability, the supplier would expect the person to be on the PSR and thus would know from that.

matt_drummer said:

dealyboy said:

 I want the non-payer to have a CCJ and a seizure of their assets to pay the debt, please  .

You really think they will have assets?

Wilful non-payers might, those who simply decide not to pay rather than those who actually can't.  It's probably not helpful to assume they all would though.

This is the problem with our benefits system.

I have a friend, he used to do a well paying job, him and his wife did. They have three children.

Neither of them can now go to work because of stress.

So, they get enough money not to go to work, run two cars, rent a four bedroom detached house and have at least two foreign holidays a year (they need a break, apparently).

Despite the stress, my friend is able to post endless videos on a website we all know, covers of songs from his favourite bands.

He claims he is a singer/songwriter, he's no longer a roofer!

When he's not doing this, and despite all the stress, he is able to go out three or four times a week to play gigs with his band or on his own.

The cause of their stress, they lost a child shortly after birth, it was 25 years ago. A stressful and traumatic time and they have my deepest sympathy, but for this, we will pay for them forever.

Trust me, there's nothing to stop them working, neither of them have ever been able to hold down a job, they are just agro, work shy and feel that the world owes them a living.

The only reason they don't go to work is that our government makes it really easy for them not to have to.


People like this are not only taking tax payers for fools, they are also depriving the most needy in our country from the support they need and deserve.


Until our country finds a way to determine who is truly in need and who is just working the system the problems will persist.