E-on increasing my Direct Debit when in Credit

pseudodox

Back when the financial crisis of rising energy costs & escalating food prices really started to bite I saw a TV reporter interviewer people queuing at a food bank.  There are people in genuine need but the one that stood out to me was the woman covered in tattoos & bling bemoaning that she could not afford food for her children.  One of those children (perhaps age about 10) was clearly chatting to a mate on an iPhone.  That is my definition of "feckless".

matt_drummer

pseudodox said:

Back when the financial crisis of rising energy costs & escalating food prices really started to bite I saw a TV reporter interviewer people queuing at a food bank.  There are people in genuine need but the one that stood out to me was the woman covered in tattoos & bling bemoaning that she could not afford food for her children.  One of those children (perhaps age about 10) was clearly chatting to a mate on an iPhone.  That is my definition of "feckless".

They seem to be able to feed their dogs and cats though!

pseudodox

They have priorities!  Just not my idea of priorities!

deano2099

EssexHebridean said:

 Another scenario - someone in a household where money is seriously tight and no EF is in place, or the one there was has had to be used and not yet replenished. If the fridge breaks down, and there is money stashed away in the energy pot, but nowhere else - do you struggle on without a fridge, or do you raid the energy savings to replace it? Someone who knows they could find themselves in that position might indeed find it "safer" to just pay the monthly amount. Even those who have simply never been taught about budgeting - their parents always paid for energy monthly, and so as far as they are concerned that is just how they do it. All of those folk are also likely to not be candidates to otherwise have the money stashed away in a high interest paying account either - so in fact they're not "losing" anything by having a credit balance built. It's often not people being "tempted to spend it on something unnecessary" that's the issue - it's them feeling they are left with no choice but to spend it on something entirely essential - and organisation and motivation can't always over-ride "life getting in the way".

I'd argue when life does get in the way, most of the time it absolutely *is* better to delay paying the energy bill than suffering the loss of something actually essential. Not having a working fridge could cost you far more in the medium term than going in to debt on your energy bill - the extra expenditure on travel to buy food every day (or buying from more expensive local stores), not being able to store leftovers, etc. 

You're totally correct that sometimes life will deliver you more pressing issues than keeping on top of your energy bill (given that repayment terms are actually fairly generous) - where I entirely disagree is the idea that in those circumstances, you're better off not being able to deal with the more pressing issue but still have a credit balance with your energy supplier.

(Obviously there's a grey area here around what is absolutely essential, and yes, life might throw at you the chance for a "family trip to Disneyland" which you just *can't* miss out on... I personally agree with Ofgem's recommended approach which is that energy companies should have to return a credit balance of any size, at any time, at the customer's request. Provides some sort of mental barrier for people over spending it while still allowing people access to it in an actual emergency).

deano2099

matt_drummer said:

I find  it fascinating to watch people when I am out, sometimes people clearly on first/early dates and the phone is more important than the person they are with.

I am sure we have all witnessed where you are talking to someone and their phone makes a noise and they can't help but look at it mid conversation.

I read that as a sign I need to be more interesting!

la531983

matt_drummer said:

pseudodox said:

Back when the financial crisis of rising energy costs & escalating food prices really started to bite I saw a TV reporter interviewer people queuing at a food bank.  There are people in genuine need but the one that stood out to me was the woman covered in tattoos & bling bemoaning that she could not afford food for her children.  One of those children (perhaps age about 10) was clearly chatting to a mate on an iPhone.  That is my definition of "feckless".

They seem to be able to feed their dogs and cats though!

Are you suggesting they just dump beloved family pets onto the authorities and charities already at breaking point?
Many food banks will, believe it or not, give out pet food. 

MattMattMattUK

la531983 said:

matt_drummer said:

pseudodox said:

Back when the financial crisis of rising energy costs & escalating food prices really started to bite I saw a TV reporter interviewer people queuing at a food bank.  There are people in genuine need but the one that stood out to me was the woman covered in tattoos & bling bemoaning that she could not afford food for her children.  One of those children (perhaps age about 10) was clearly chatting to a mate on an iPhone.  That is my definition of "feckless".

They seem to be able to feed their dogs and cats though!

Are you suggesting they just dump beloved family pets onto the authorities and charities already at breaking point?
Many food banks will, believe it or not, give out pet food. 

I would suggest, as anyone sensible would, that people should not take on costs that they cannot afford. Many people do not get pets because they are unable to afford them, many others take on pets that they are obviously unable to afford. There are people who take on pets whilst able to afford them and fall on hard times, but many many more take them on when unable to afford them initially and expect someone else to pick up the cost. 

PennineAcute

MattMattMattUK said:

la531983 said:

matt_drummer said:

pseudodox said:

Back when the financial crisis of rising energy costs & escalating food prices really started to bite I saw a TV reporter interviewer people queuing at a food bank.  There are people in genuine need but the one that stood out to me was the woman covered in tattoos & bling bemoaning that she could not afford food for her children.  One of those children (perhaps age about 10) was clearly chatting to a mate on an iPhone.  That is my definition of "feckless".

They seem to be able to feed their dogs and cats though!

Are you suggesting they just dump beloved family pets onto the authorities and charities already at breaking point?
Many food banks will, believe it or not, give out pet food. 

I would suggest, as anyone sensible would, that people should not take on costs that they cannot afford. Many people do not get pets because they are unable to afford them, many others take on pets that they are obviously unable to afford. There are people who take on pets whilst able to afford them and fall on hard times, but many many more take them on when unable to afford them initially and expect someone else to pick up the cost.

I assume you can back up "but many many more take them on when unable to afford them initially and expect someone else to pick up the cost. " or is this your personal vilifying?

MultiFuelBurner

Not to go too off topic but we both have reasonable salaries and 4 years ago we got a dog. The vets bills have more than doubled, maybe tripled. 

We can afford that but I can understand others being caught out by the price rises.

MultiFuelBurner

deano2099 said:

EssexHebridean said:

 Another scenario - someone in a household where money is seriously tight and no EF is in place, or the one there was has had to be used and not yet replenished. If the fridge breaks down, and there is money stashed away in the energy pot, but nowhere else - do you struggle on without a fridge, or do you raid the energy savings to replace it? Someone who knows they could find themselves in that position might indeed find it "safer" to just pay the monthly amount. Even those who have simply never been taught about budgeting - their parents always paid for energy monthly, and so as far as they are concerned that is just how they do it. All of those folk are also likely to not be candidates to otherwise have the money stashed away in a high interest paying account either - so in fact they're not "losing" anything by having a credit balance built. It's often not people being "tempted to spend it on something unnecessary" that's the issue - it's them feeling they are left with no choice but to spend it on something entirely essential - and organisation and motivation can't always over-ride "life getting in the way".

I'd argue when life does get in the way, most of the time it absolutely *is* better to delay paying the energy bill than suffering the loss of something actually essential. Not having a working fridge could cost you far more in the medium term than going in to debt on your energy bill - the extra expenditure on travel to buy food every day (or buying from more expensive local stores), not being able to store leftovers, etc. 

You're totally correct that sometimes life will deliver you more pressing issues than keeping on top of your energy bill (given that repayment terms are actually fairly generous) - where I entirely disagree is the idea that in those circumstances, you're better off not being able to deal with the more pressing issue but still have a credit balance with your energy supplier.

(Obviously there's a grey area here around what is absolutely essential, and yes, life might throw at you the chance for a "family trip to Disneyland" which you just *can't* miss out on... I personally agree with Ofgem's recommended approach which is that energy companies should have to return a credit balance of any size, at any time, at the customer's request. Provides some sort of mental barrier for people over spending it while still allowing people access to it in an actual emergency).

I don't know what we would chose to pay/not pay should push come to shove in dire circumstances.

We have always seen energy as an essential, but given the rules about cutting people off and the big four figure sums we have seen tenants owe on properties in the past then perhaps utilities could wait if need be.