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

dealyboy

@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.

Some excellent points as usual Spoonie. I'm on the PSR but I'm not vulnerable nor at risk of defaulting. I would hazard to suggest there are many with disabilities who would not consider themselves vulnerable, but also would be on the PSR.

I'm trying to define the person who fails to pay the essential bills without good cause, and if I am the adjudicator reviewing the case for a ppm I would want to know the good causes that would mitigate that decision, but in the absence of these my hand would be forced.

Would you rather the balance was struck more to adding the cost of defaults to the standing charge, so that people would be moved to a ppm only when there was evidence of willful neglect rather than absence of good cause ?

zagfles

matt_drummer said:

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.

Trust me, there's nothing wrong with them, 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.

I know people like this too - it's now getting to the stage where virtually everyone does so trying to dismiss examples like this as Daily Mail propaganda or a tiny minority no longer works.

But I also know people who've struggled with genuine health problems unable to face the wall of burearcracy to get what they need. It seems to be more down to how well you understand the system than what your needs actually are. I know someone with genuine MH problems who got an advise from a charity for his condition on claiming disability benefits, the advice was basically to lie! Think of his worst day, and say that's typical! He refused, it caused him so much stress even thinking about lying about/exaggerating his condition so he didn't, he's now in a good job and it's doing his MH the world of good.

matt_drummer

zagfles said:

I know people like this too - it's now getting to the stage where virtually everyone does so trying to dismiss examples like this as Daily Mail propaganda or a tiny minority no longer works.

But I also know people who've struggled with genuine health problems unable to face the wall of burearcracy to get what they need. It seems to be more down to how well you understand the system than what your needs actually are. I know someone with genuine MH problems who got an advise from a charity for his condition on claiming disability benefits, the advice was basically to lie! Think of his worst day, and say that's typical! He refused, he's now in a good job and it's doing his MH the world of good.

Good for your friend. Sadly, I feel that the advice they were given was correct, I think it is what is required, make it sound as bad as possible.

My personal experience is that people in the most need underplay their problems, they say they are fine when they are not. My parents are a great example, desperately in need of help, always said they were fine, got very little despite their problems being immediately very obvious.

The other side of the coin is those that overstate their issues, things that are normal causes of anxiety for many of us are a barrier to work for some.

My view is that, often. those who are playing the system will `try harder' than those will real problems.

However, I understand the difficulties in determining who is `genuine' and who is not.

Spoonie_Turtle

dealyboy said:

@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.

Some excellent points as usual Spoonie. I'm on the PSR but I'm not vulnerable nor at risk of defaulting. I would hazard to suggest there are many with disabilities who would not consider themselves vulnerable, but also would be on the PSR.

I'm trying to define the person who fails to pay the essential bills without good cause, and if I am the adjudicator reviewing the case for a ppm I would want to know the good causes that would mitigate that decision, but in the absence of these my hand would be forced.

Would you rather the balance was struck more to adding the cost of defaults to the standing charge, so that people would be moved to a ppm only when there was evidence of willful neglect rather than absence of good cause ?

I mentioned the PSR because you said "One way or another (perhaps via a support agency) a supplier should know that a customer is vulnerable."  Obviously the PSR is a very very blunt, vague instrument* but it's a good starting point to give some at least minimal context for when the supplier prepares to try to engage, particularly where mental illnesses are involved.  And it's certainly not infallible because not everyone who needs to be registered on it is, for whatever reason.
*[I'm also on it; in my current circumstances I'm not particularly vulnerable and am financially comfortable because my life is so restricted by illness I have relatively minimal expenses.  But if they stop any of my benefits upon review then whilst still having minimal expenses, being financially comfortable will no longer be the case.]

For actually distinguishing between 'can't pay' and 'won't pay' the PSR isn't enough, clearly, and I don't know enough about the processes already in place to be able to say whether they do already have appropriate ways of distinguishing, or whether more needs to be done.

I can't answer your question about where I would prefer the balance to fall because I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.  Any solutions proposed have their downsides, plus there is always a disconnect between what should happen in theory and what would likely happen in reality - again because of systemic biases and barriers in place that put various groups of people at a disadvantage.  And often such decisions are made in the political interest of whomever is in power rather than really in the interests of the people they say they're trying to help.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

4.       Lower cost alternatives to ringfencing are available and used in other industries such as travel and banking to protect customer balances. We are disturbed that Ofgem has not assessed the impact of these or compared them with the proposal for ringfencing

Ofgem would appear to have accepted this argument.

FSCS. Yep good scheme. Although not tested on pay outs in the 7 days quoted, thankfully.

ATOL (travel) not so good. They refuse to pay out where people have used credit cards & tell them to claim from bank. So avoid a lot of pay outs. 

[Deleted User]

Code of practice overseen by Ofgem that Energy Suppliers are signed up to. 

"A vulnerable customer at risk from disconnection will be unable to safeguard his or her personal welfare or the welfare of any children in the household, and will be in need of care and attention by reason of age or infirmity, or suffering from chronic illness or mental disorder, or substantially handicapped by being disabled."

"where there is evidence that a customer is vulnerable, the ultimate sanction of disconnection will be avoided and the customer will receive the appropriate assistance to help them out of debt."

dealyboy

@Spoonie_Turtle said:

dealyboy said:

@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.

Some excellent points as usual Spoonie. I'm on the PSR but I'm not vulnerable nor at risk of defaulting. I would hazard to suggest there are many with disabilities who would not consider themselves vulnerable, but also would be on the PSR.

I'm trying to define the person who fails to pay the essential bills without good cause, and if I am the adjudicator reviewing the case for a ppm I would want to know the good causes that would mitigate that decision, but in the absence of these my hand would be forced.

Would you rather the balance was struck more to adding the cost of defaults to the standing charge, so that people would be moved to a ppm only when there was evidence of willful neglect rather than absence of good cause ?

I mentioned the PSR because you said "One way or another (perhaps via a support agency) a supplier should know that a customer is vulnerable."  Obviously the PSR is a very very blunt, vague instrument* but it's a good starting point to give some at least minimal context for when the supplier prepares to try to engage, particularly where mental illnesses are involved.  And it's certainly not infallible because not everyone who needs to be registered on it is, for whatever reason.
*[I'm also on it; in my current circumstances I'm not particularly vulnerable and am financially comfortable because my life is so restricted by illness I have relatively minimal expenses.  But if they stop any of my benefits upon review then whilst still having minimal expenses, being financially comfortable will no longer be the case.]

For actually distinguishing between 'can't pay' and 'won't pay' the PSR isn't enough, clearly, and I don't know enough about the processes already in place to be able to say whether they do already have appropriate ways of distinguishing, or whether more needs to be done.

I can't answer your question about where I would prefer the balance to fall because I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.  Any solutions proposed have their downsides, plus there is always a disconnect between what should happen in theory and what would likely happen in reality - again because of systemic biases and barriers in place that put various groups of people at a disadvantage.  And often such decisions are made in the political interest of whomever is in power rather than really in the interests of the people they say they're trying to help.

I always end up thinking a little bit more when I read your posts Spoonie, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing ... yes I do ... it's a good thing ... the less we know we know the more we know we don't know.

[Deleted User]

matt_drummer said:

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? one limits their energy use and yes the debt can grow and grow.  

They are paying what they can afford towards their energy use.
If that is less than they are using then the debt will grow. 
Energy use is not rationed. It would not be safe to do so.
In effect the energy supplier is being forced to pay for social welfare policy. As the alternative for many vulnerable people would be living in destitution or in a care home or as a long term hospital inpatient.

Similarly the systems for energy debt forgiveness and the warm homes discount are social welfare policies dictated by the government or regulator and paid for by the energy companies. And ultimately paid for by other energy bill payers.

And it is not just energy companies. For water there are dependent on supplier schemes for those with disabilities that result in high water use that cap the water bill regardless of how much is used, and schemes for some of those in water poverty that half the water bill. And water supply cannot be cut off for non payment. 

Also for the phone and Internet there are social tariffs giving unlimited use for a lower than market cost.

While for Council Tax that pays for bins, street lights, etcetera there is council tax reduction.

zagfles

matt_drummer said:

zagfles said:

I know people like this too - it's now getting to the stage where virtually everyone does so trying to dismiss examples like this as Daily Mail propaganda or a tiny minority no longer works.

But I also know people who've struggled with genuine health problems unable to face the wall of burearcracy to get what they need. It seems to be more down to how well you understand the system than what your needs actually are. I know someone with genuine MH problems who got an advise from a charity for his condition on claiming disability benefits, the advice was basically to lie! Think of his worst day, and say that's typical! He refused, he's now in a good job and it's doing his MH the world of good.

Good for your friend. Sadly, I feel that the advice they were given was correct, I think it is what is required, make it sound as bad as possible.

My personal experience is that people in the most need underplay their problems, they say they are fine when they are not. My parents are a great example, desperately in need of help, always said they were fine, got very little despite their problems being immediately very obvious.

The other side of the coin is those that overstate their issues, things that are normal causes of anxiety for many of us are a barrier to work for some.

My view is that, often. those who are playing the system will `try harder' than those will real problems.

However, I understand the difficulties in determining who is `genuine' and who is not.

I think perhaps if they try to identify and prosecute those who encourage others to submit fraudulent benefit claims, as that's basically what happened with my friend. The charity were brilliant at first, he first contacted them at a really low point in his life after losing his job, splitting with his partner and losing his home all within a few months. They helped him find somewhere to live, and set him up with some part time voluntary work.

It was when they suggested he talk to their benefits adviser about applying for PIP/LCW/LCWRA it all went downhill, the adviser told him he'll "never work again" (this despite the fact he was already doing voluntary work) and tried to convince him to lie about his condition, eg state his worst day at his lowest point was typical.

The stress that caused him was unbelievable, he felt he ought to follow the advice as the charity had been so good to him but he couldn't sleep worrying about telling lies to claim benefits. So he didn't bother applying at all, stayed on UC/JSA with no LCWRA, and found a good job which he loves.

Rather than DWP benefit investigators staking out peoples' homes to see if they do something incompatible with their claim, perhaps they should go undercover posing as someone with a minor disability or health issue, seek advice, and prosecute those who encourage others to commit benefit fraud.

Apologies for OT diversion...