Dual rate tariffs, EV rates vs everyone else

CSI_Yorkshire

lohr500 said:

Has anyone seen a specific clause in an EV tariff T&Cs stating what constitutes an EV?

I've seen several that even specify the brand.

QrizB

CSI_Yorkshire said:

lohr500 said:

Has anyone seen a specific clause in an EV tariff T&Cs stating what constitutes an EV?

I've seen several that even specify the brand.

Octopus Go, however, is quite vague.

Although I doubt that this one would count!

https://www.tamiya.com/english//products/58416rising_fighter/index.htm

CSI_Yorkshire

QrizB said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

lohr500 said:

Has anyone seen a specific clause in an EV tariff T&Cs stating what constitutes an EV?

I've seen several that even specify the brand.

Octopus Go, however, is quite vague.

Although I doubt that this one would count!

Not always:

dunstonh

I note that there are some cracking deals available to EV owners (7.5 or 9.5 p/kWH night rates currently), which are (it seems) absolutely not available to non-EV owners.  Why not?

Are you forgetting economy 7 tariffs?  
EDF Eastern region currently have 8p for the 7 hours off peak.  No EV is required.

And don't forget that multi-tariffs are a see saw.  The more the low rate is pushed down, the higher the high rate is pushed up.

QrizB

CSI_Yorkshire said:

QrizB said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

lohr500 said:

Has anyone seen a specific clause in an EV tariff T&Cs stating what constitutes an EV?

I've seen several that even specify the brand.

Octopus Go, however, is quite vague.

Not always:

Go Green is a different tariff to Go.

As of 22 March 2023 the Go T&C state:

2.1.3 Octopus Go is designed for customers who either own or have a long-term lease of a battery electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle that they will be charging at their home that we supply. If you sign up to our Octopus Go tariff but do not meet any of these eligibility criteria, we can place you on an alternative tariff that we consider is more appropriate for your circumstances. We will let you know if we do this and advise you of the rates and terms that apply to the alternative tariff.

CSI_Yorkshire

QrizB said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

QrizB said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

lohr500 said:

Has anyone seen a specific clause in an EV tariff T&Cs stating what constitutes an EV?

I've seen several that even specify the brand.

Octopus Go, however, is quite vague.

Not always:

Go Green is a different tariff to Go.

As of 22 March 2023 the Go T&C state:

2.1.3 Octopus Go is designed for customers who either own or have a long-term lease of a battery electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle that they will be charging at their home that we supply. If you sign up to our Octopus Go tariff but do not meet any of these eligibility criteria, we can place you on an alternative tariff that we consider is more appropriate for your circumstances. We will let you know if we do this and advise you of the rates and terms that apply to the alternative tariff.

I know, that's why I said "not always".

I have also seen similar on an old niche E.ON tariff and one from one of the defunct suppliers.

michaels

Spoonie_Turtle said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Its not discrimination because "not owning an EV" is not a protected characteristic.

Companies are free to put restrictions on their tariff offerings.

I've seen this idea a couple of times recently.  A wider definition of discrimination is treating a person or group of people (or multiples of those) less favourably than others.  It's only illegal if it's on the basis of protected characteristics, under the Equality Act 2010.

So technically, yes non-EV owners could be seen to be discriminated against compared with EV owners in this case, but it's certainly not illegal and it's debatable whether it's even unfair (which is usually the underlying accusation of the word). 

As you quite rightly say, companies are free to put any terms and conditions on the tariffs they offer, as long as they don't discriminate against or unfairly disadvantage people with protected characteristics.

However if we can demonstrate that EVs are predominantly owned by, for example, white able bodied males of a certain age group then it becomes (indirect) discrimination even if the pricing policy per se is non discriminatory.

Spoonie_Turtle

michaels said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Its not discrimination because "not owning an EV" is not a protected characteristic.

Companies are free to put restrictions on their tariff offerings.

I've seen this idea a couple of times recently.  A wider definition of discrimination is treating a person or group of people (or multiples of those) less favourably than others.  It's only illegal if it's on the basis of protected characteristics, under the Equality Act 2010.

So technically, yes non-EV owners could be seen to be discriminated against compared with EV owners in this case, but it's certainly not illegal and it's debatable whether it's even unfair (which is usually the underlying accusation of the word). 

As you quite rightly say, companies are free to put any terms and conditions on the tariffs they offer, as long as they don't discriminate against or unfairly disadvantage people with protected characteristics.

However if we can demonstrate that EVs are predominantly owned by, for example, white able bodied males of a certain age group then it becomes (indirect) discrimination even if the pricing policy per se is non discriminatory.

Maybe, if factors of unfairness can be proven to be a cause and the correlation not being just a preference, but I don't think the OP was thinking that deeply! 
[Even overt discrimination can be really hard to challenge, the EA2010 is often pretty toothless in reality.]