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

Alnat1

born_again said:

So we are going to see some that are not "Can't" pay & more "Won't" pay....

End of the day, this is like everything else. We all pay for shoplifting etc, as it's just built in to retailer costs.

While I do not agree with forced entry to fit pre paid meters, something needs to be done. But it should not be protecting the companies. It should be helping the people in need, & punishing the ones that are simply playing the system & not paying as they know  they can get away with it.

How are companies supposed to know who is in need and who is playing the system?

Scot_39

powerful_Rogue said:

Didn't the pension and benefits get a 10% uplift this month? Far more then most people in employment.

Also, it's to be expected. We pay higher bills in shops to account for the shoplifting/security.

10% is nothing though when it comes to energy prices over last 2 years.

Feb 21 - £1138
Aug 21 - £1277
Apr 22 - £1971
3549,4279,3280 last 3 Q - capped by £2500 EPG.

Forecasts - CI c £2024 c£2076 next 2 Q  - below £3000 EPG

So that's even with EPG currently  double 2 years ago - 100% not 10%. Say £1300 at TDCV

£400 Ebss eats away a chunk of that more as a % for lower users.  £300 additional wfp for 8m pensioners etc. Eats away at it for them.

Those on certain benefits got more help, but many just above thresholds got no more help. 

And for them say £900 at TDCV - is a hard find.

And if CI right will still remain roughly £800 above 2 years ago, with no EBSS to help.

Without the EBSS, as a low user, current cap forecasts reducing means at best my bills will be roughly same as last winter - last time I did maths - CI forecasts were c£50-100 higher and I was paying more.

And like food inflation, energy inflation hits the poorest hardest.

Scot_39

Alnat1 said:

born_again said:

So we are going to see some that are not "Can't" pay & more "Won't" pay....

End of the day, this is like everything else. We all pay for shoplifting etc, as it's just built in to retailer costs.

While I do not agree with forced entry to fit pre paid meters, something needs to be done. But it should not be protecting the companies. It should be helping the people in need, & punishing the ones that are simply playing the system & not paying as they know  they can get away with it.

How are companies supposed to know who is in need and who is paying the system?

That's for the courts to decide.

But that let down many in press reported PP Warrant wave through.

Qyburn

Any business has to cover bad debt somehow. But what I don't understand from the Ofgem document, is why it is shared unevenly depending on payment method ..

"we estimate that for cap period 10a (April 2023 – June 2023), debt-related costs represent approximately 6% of typical dual fuel standard credit bills, 1% of typical dual fuel direct debit bills and 0.4% of typical dual fuel prepayment meter (PPM) bills."

Qyburn

Scot_39 said:
Without the EBSS, as a low user, current cap forecasts reducing means at best my bills will be roughly same as last winter - last time I did maths - CI forecasts were c£50-100 higher and I was paying more.

And like food inflation, energy inflation hits the poorest hardest.

Are you saying you're a low energy user? The figure you listed, if those are your actual monthly bills, look high.

mmmmikey

Qyburn said:

Any business has to cover bad debt somehow. But what I don't understand from the Ofgem document, is why it is shared unevenly depending on payment method ..

"we estimate that for cap period 10a (April 2023 – June 2023), debt-related costs represent approximately 6% of typical dual fuel standard credit bills, 1% of typical dual fuel direct debit bills and 0.4% of typical dual fuel prepayment meter (PPM) bills."

Presumably because bad debt costs most for standard credit payment methods, followed by direct debit and then PPM? In which case seems fair enough? Or to put it another way, the reason you get a discount for direct debit is because it costs energy companies less if you pay that way because you're less likely to run up a debt you can't pay.

Or am I missing something?

born_again

Alnat1 said:

born_again said:

So we are going to see some that are not "Can't" pay & more "Won't" pay....

End of the day, this is like everything else. We all pay for shoplifting etc, as it's just built in to retailer costs.

While I do not agree with forced entry to fit pre paid meters, something needs to be done. But it should not be protecting the companies. It should be helping the people in need, & punishing the ones that are simply playing the system & not paying as they know  they can get away with it.

How are companies supposed to know who is in need and who is playing the system?

That's is one for the courts. As they can request a statement of affairs. 

SAC2334

Suppliers don t want any courts to get involved with their business at any times apart from the Monday morning signing of warrants for which they are charged ( when I was on the job meter reading ) £100 per warrant. The Court makes a profit out of the applications which are done in a block if they have several that week.
Soon as you get our learned friends involved then any profits they make on a customer has gone for many years. It costs many thousands to involve Courts and Lawyers 
They don t get involved in Courts and Lawyers even if a customer has been caught stealing £10,000 worth of energy .
As soon as the general public got to know about the force fitting of prepayment meters by a Times newspapers ludicrous little page filler ,out come the bleeding hearts of pity.
We have been force fitting prepays for well over a decade in their many thousands and vast majority will be to the " won t pays " and those caught meter bypassing who get an estimated debt on the stolen energy added on the prepay meters which are mostly force fitted. Getting rid of force fitted meters is the last defence against thieves and won t pays. 

Bigphil1474

Trouble is, it also hits the can't pays hard as well. I don't see any problem with pre-payment meters, generally speaking, for ordinary people (different for people with specific needs/issues), but IMO they should benefit from subsidised energy rates based on their income. After all, they are paying up front, whereas those of us on credit meters get to pay for our energy after we have used it. This would benefit the can't pay as they get cheaper energy, and the won't pays and thieves can't get round it. By making PP meters more expensive, those that are struggling will struggle more or have to sit in the cold - not good for a civilised society.

Alnat1

From July PP meter customers will be charged the same rates as DD customers.  

Will those that think PP meters are unfair then accept that it's the best option for people who have debts with their energy company?