Abolish standing charges

born_again

MikeJXE said:

I am a low user and I moved into a well insulated 1 bed flat in February 

My costs to date are duel fuel sanding charge £243.01 Total cost for usage is £405.45, Sc is over 50% of my costs

My electric is the worst SC is £154.64 and usage is £157.73

Do I like it ? No

Can I do anything about it ?  No 

Does it bother me ? NO 

Just suck it up and get on with life as it is, there are more important things than money 

& this from someone who would really see a £££ gain from no standing charges, as unit prices would go up. 

Leading to the high users paying more, many who will be in the less well off groups.

bristolleedsfan

born_again said:

MikeJXE said:

I am a low user and I moved into a well insulated 1 bed flat in February 

My costs to date are duel fuel sanding charge £243.01 Total cost for usage is £405.45, Sc is over 50% of my costs

My electric is the worst SC is £154.64 and usage is £157.73

Do I like it ? No

Can I do anything about it ?  No 

Does it bother me ? NO 

Just suck it up and get on with life as it is, there are more important things than money 

& this from someone who would really see a £££ gain from no standing charges, as unit prices would go up. 

Leading to the high users paying more, many who will be in the less well off groups.

MikeJXE appears to live in one of the cheaper regions for electricity standing charge. £154.64 compared with £219+ in the most expensive regions.

matelodave

This has become the same pointless discussion that goes round and round without any sort of resolution.

Those that understand, will accept that there really isn't a better system to proved 24/7 services to every household in the land.

Then there are those who will never accept that they have to pay their fair share and expect others to subsidise them, and so the same argument keep being raised. I guess that they are a little happier that OFGEM has had the brilliant idea that the rest of us can pay an extra £16 a year to subsidise even more those who don't pay their bills,.

Which TBH is theft if you take or use something that you aren't going to pay for. -You'd expect to be prosecuted if you drove away from a garage without paying after you'd filled your car up, likewise if you walked out of TESCO without paying for goods. In what way is gas or leccy different that the rest of us have to compensate the energy companies for those that default.

MultiFuelBurner

£6Billion in unpaid fuel apparently.

But don't worry we will pay it for you. Not quite the same as when you went over £10 by a few pence at the petrol station and there was a tray of coins you could use to pay for the pennies you went over.

born_again

matelodave said:

This has become the same pointless discussion that goes round and round without any sort of resolution.

Those that understand, will accept that there really isn't a better system to proved 24/7 services to every household in the land.

Then there are those who will never accept that they have to pay their fair share and expect others to subsidise them, and so the same argument keep being raised. I guess that they are a little happier that OFGEM has had the brilliant idea that the rest of us can pay an extra £16 a year to subsidise even more those who don't pay their bills,.

Which TBH is theft if you take or use something that you aren't going to pay for. -You'd expect to be prosecuted if you drove away from a garage without paying after you'd filled your car up, likewise if you walked out of TESCO without paying for goods. In what way is gas or leccy different that the rest of us have to compensate the energy companies for those that default.

Sadly just pandering to the click bait media (nice sad face & we are being ripped off by face corporations making millions @ our expense) who publish these stories about people that can't/won't pay their bills. Then the energy companies are having to work with their hands tied behind their backs, as same media do not like the fact that some greedy business can protect it's self against these hapless groups, who in many cases are just playing the system now.

bristolleedsfan

MultiFuelBurner said:

£6Billion in unpaid fuel apparently.

Have I missed something ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67725424

"It estimates that debt levels for energy customers has risen to £2.9bn."

Qyburn

born_again said:

Sadly just pandering to the click bait media

Too right, the same people who !!!!!! about suppliers taking action to limit or collect defaults, then go on to !!!!!! about having to pay for those uncollectable debts.

matelodave

Lets have a two tier standing charge and see how that pans out especially for those who are suffering in the gales and storms at the moment. 

Those who pay the higher rate would get priority service, have their services restored and  sit smugly in the warm with lights on whilst those on the lower rate who either cant afford it or feel hard done by by having to pay a standing charge will then have to pay extra to get it sorted or wait until the priority customers have been dealt with.

Do you really think that the standing charges that are paid down in the south should be used to repair the network up in the north or even in Scotland or shall we just let them pay their own way. Tough for those who live in rural areas where the infrastructure is more vulnerable to bad weather or live a long way from the point of generation - should they have to pay more.

Is that a fairer solution, rather than everyone chipping in to make sure that all of us, rich or poor, vulnerable or not get their services delivered, maintained and repaired without hassle and yes, even contributing towards those who genuinely cant afford to pay for their energy.

If the whingers can come up with a better solution, lets hear it rather than just moaning

debitcardmayhem

My take is if you are on means tested benefits, then the gov should pay the suppliers for the SC directly, we get attendance allowance for one of us, but that is not means tested. Seems simple but of course that means that the SC will end up more expensive because the gov can’t manage a p155up in a brewery

matelodave

So you reckon that a proportion of benefits should be paid for a defined purpose leaving no leeway for the recipient to squander it in anyway they seem fit. Obviously the benefits that are being received would have to be reduced by the amount that gets paid directly to the energy companies or the landlord etc.

Sounds reasonable to me as then important stuff like rent, energy and vouchers that can only be spent on wholesome food ensures that those who need it get food, warmth and shelter but with perhaps a small allowance for incidentals.

At least you wouldn't get energy or rent arrears accumulating. That would save us all paying twice, once for the benefits and again tor the arrears- bring it on.