Consumer Credit Balances versus Better Ofgem Regulation

pochase

I believe in anothe rthread  about prepaid meters you argued that affordibilty should be taken into account how peole should repay the debt based on affordibility, and maybe not at all if they cannot afford it.

Also you argued there should be some independant body that decides if a ciustomer has to get onto prepaid or not. How does that work in your opinion with suppliers should not allow to build up debt, you want to even increase the time until the supplier can do something..

What about those debts where the suppliers are not allowed to install prepaid meters, over 85 years or vulnerable who is going to pay for this increasing debts?

matt_drummer

I don't think you can compare the energy sector to banking or almost all other businesses.

The problem that energy suppliers face is that they are obliged to continue to supply a product even if the customer hasn't paid for what they have already had.

They either have to be able to manage debt like almost all other businesses can, or be protected in some way.

Someone has to pay in the end.

Chrysalis

pochase said:

I believe in anothe rthread  about prepaid meters you argued that affordibilty should be taken into account how peole should repay the debt based on affordibility, and maybe not at all if they cannot afford it.

Also you argued there should be some independant body that decides if a ciustomer has to get onto prepaid or not. How does that work in your opinion with suppliers should not allow to build up debt, you want to even increase the time until the supplier can do something..

What about those debts where the suppliers are not allowed to install prepaid meters, over 85 years or vulnerable who is going to pay for this increasing debts?

I didnt say not at all, but inevitably there would be some write off's as is in other businesses.

Also you may have misunderstood what I said, I think there should be quicker action when bills are not paid.  This prevents the debt getting too high and would hopefully be beneficial to both parties..

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

I don't think you can compare the energy sector to banking or almost all other businesses.

The problem that energy suppliers face is that they are obliged to continue to supply a product even if the customer hasn't paid for what they have already had.

They either have to be able to manage debt like almost all other businesses can, or be protected in some way.

Someone has to pay in the end.

Well right now they are effectively preferential creditors.

As you said someone has to pay for these unpaid debts, but if you e.g. make someone pay what they cant afford as a weekly rate back on their energy, then guess what, some other bill isnt going to get paid, so it might be a landlord who has to default on his mortgage because the rent money was used to pay back EDF (then further down the line is further costs to rehouse them), or they default on a loan, and the guarantor then has to pay up.  The world is bigger than these energy companies.

What other companies do is negotiate with the customer, if it doesnt work out they pass on to a debt company, if that fails, then it eventually ends up at court where a CCJ might settle the matter.  They dont ring up the regulator and say can you force them to pay me XX a month, thanks.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

I didnt say not at all, but inevitably there would be some write off's as is in other businesses.

Also you may have misunderstood what I said, I think there should be quicker action when bills are not paid.  This prevents the debt getting too high and would hopefully be beneficial to both parties..

In our business we minimise bad debts by ceasing to supply customers who do not pay. Energy companies cannot do this.

You cannot compare energy suppliers to other businesses, their profits are limited by a regulator and they are obliged to continue supply even when a customer hasn't paid for what they have already been supplied.

What quicker action would you take that safeguards the customer, the supplier and all the other customers?

pochase

Sorry, but you were saying that 10 contacts to the customer is not enough, there should be an additional step investigating  before a prepaid meter is instralled. 

So are you now saying a customer should be put onto prepaid within lets say 2 unpaid months of energy debt? The process would need to start the day after you miss a payment taking into account the time neede dto get a warrant. 

The whole problem with the prepaid discussion was that people found that energy suppliers acted to fast including you, now you are sayung they should act faster.

Also whoi s going to finance the write offs. Energy supplers are forced to keep supplying energy, banks will stop borrowing you money.

[Deleted User]

Chrysalis said:

pochase said:

I believe in anothe rthread  about prepaid meters you argued that affordibilty should be taken into account how peole should repay the debt based on affordibility, and maybe not at all if they cannot afford it.

Also you argued there should be some independant body that decides if a ciustomer has to get onto prepaid or not. How does that work in your opinion with suppliers should not allow to build up debt, you want to even increase the time until the supplier can do something..

What about those debts where the suppliers are not allowed to install prepaid meters, over 85 years or vulnerable who is going to pay for this increasing debts?

I didnt say not at all, but inevitably there would be some write off's as is in other businesses.

Also you may have misunderstood what I said, I think there should be quicker action when bills are not paid.  This prevents the debt getting too high and would hopefully be beneficial to both parties..

Such as: - the Government does not like energy supplies to be cut off during the Winter months when usage is high, and its preference is that suppliers fit prepayment meters but again not in Winter. 

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

I didnt say not at all, but inevitably there would be some write off's as is in other businesses.

Also you may have misunderstood what I said, I think there should be quicker action when bills are not paid.  This prevents the debt getting too high and would hopefully be beneficial to both parties..

In our business we minimise bad debts by ceasing to supply customers who do not pay. Energy companies cannot do this.

You cannot compare energy suppliers to other businesses, their profits are limited by a regulator and they are obliged to continue supply even when a customer hasn't paid for what they have already been supplied.

What quicker action would you take that safeguards the customer, the supplier and all the other customers?

You looking at it in black and white.

You think because they cant cease supply it gives them an excuse to not open dialogue with the customer?  Plus waiting a number of months first.

Chrysalis

[Deleted User] said:

Chrysalis said:

pochase said:

I believe in anothe rthread  about prepaid meters you argued that affordibilty should be taken into account how peole should repay the debt based on affordibility, and maybe not at all if they cannot afford it.

Also you argued there should be some independant body that decides if a ciustomer has to get onto prepaid or not. How does that work in your opinion with suppliers should not allow to build up debt, you want to even increase the time until the supplier can do something..

What about those debts where the suppliers are not allowed to install prepaid meters, over 85 years or vulnerable who is going to pay for this increasing debts?

I didnt say not at all, but inevitably there would be some write off's as is in other businesses.

Also you may have misunderstood what I said, I think there should be quicker action when bills are not paid.  This prevents the debt getting too high and would hopefully be beneficial to both parties..

Such as: - the Government does not like energy supplies to be cut off during the Winter months when usage is high, and its preference is that suppliers fit prepayment meters but again not in Winter. 

Already answered in multiple posts.

Chrysalis

pochase said:

Sorry, but you were saying that 10 contacts to the customer is not enough, there should be an additional step investigating  before a prepaid meter is instralled. 

So are you now saying a customer should be put onto prepaid within lets say 2 unpaid months of energy debt? The process would need to start the day after you miss a payment taking into account the time neede dto get a warrant. 

The whole problem with the prepaid discussion was that people found that energy suppliers acted to fast including you, now you are sayung they should act faster.

Also whoi s going to finance the write offs. Energy supplers are forced to keep supplying energy, banks will stop borrowing you money.

The problem was breaking into people's homes sneakily and not doing affordability assessments. (as well as not adequate vulnerability assessments).

The suppliers had to agree to take more care and are now allowed to fit these meters again.

You may have noted I am not against the principle of fitting prepay meters, its more about how its being done and the lack of care on the repayment rate.  But this is being treated as me saying there should be no prepayment meters at all.