Ofgem announces new price cap, effective October 1st

fiddlesticks0

spot1034 said:

fiddlesticks0 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

fiddlesticks0 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

fiddlesticks0 said:

Does anyone know how long, typically, after a price cap increase announcement do favourable fixed deals get pulled and new fixes with increased prices replace them? I'm guessing fairly soon but as the change isn't until October I'm not sure, also as this amount of increase in the cap has been projected for a while and these fixes with prices below the amount of the Oct increase have been available.
I looked to getting a fix earlier this week for the first date I can switch without paying exit fees as I thought the standard window for choosing a switch date was 28 days ahead, but the provider in question only offer a date up to two weeks in advance, so I'd be stuck for another week before I could take out that deal, if it doesn't disappear before then.

It happened about a month ago. There is a good idea of where the cap will be for quite a while before it is published, if you wanted a cheaper deal over winter you needed to have fixed in June or July.

There are current fixes are below the 10% Oct increase however - I just want to know how long they usually stick around after the announcement - the exit fees for me are too high to leave within 49 days of my current contract end date, so June/July were not an option as I have low energy useage, so they are higher than the savings I'd make by leaving the contract early.

There are fixes slightly below the increased rate, but they are also above the current cost and above the predicted costs for Q2 next year, they are around 2-3p per kWh more expensive than the fix that was available a few months ago. The point is that they are locking you in for 12 months, not just the next quarter. 

I'm not sure where you're getting these figures from - M.Lewis' video update this morning confirmed the cheapest fixes right now are 7% less than the increase coming in Oct, so 10% below the projected Jan cap.

The EDF Essentials 1Yr Sep25 is new, and replaces a previous one which, from memory, was 9% above the July cap. It looks like a good deal if you're still wanting to fix and are aware of EDF's reputation should you have a problem which you have to contact them about - and to be fair the majority of their customers probably don't ever have to do so.  The best deal appears to be from Outfox the Market, who are one of the smaller independent suppliers without as much backing as the big five or six or whatever it is now, so be aware of this if you want to go with them.

I took out the latter this morning - so it is 8% below the Oct price and 11% below the projected Jan price, and a number of suppliers also have fixed deals at near this figure, and these figures have been projected for many weeks now. Surely this must mean that the suppliers must be pretty confident of significant price drops in the market for Apr through to end of Sep, otherwise why wouldn't they have hiked these fixed contract prices when the projections for the upcoming price cap increases came out weeks ago?

Qyburn

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

VoucherMan

armistice said:

They have also today published an 'options paper' following the consultation on standing charges.

I'm all in favour of anything that allows bills to be reduced, which would in my case be the standing charge, but wasn't one of the arguments for getting rid of the old system that it penalised those who never bother to switch, for whatever reason?

I'm sure many more can go online and use a comparison site these days, than 10 years ago, but many probably still couldn't fully comprehend the results page with all the options.

I can see the 'equal opportunities department' watering down any proposals, just because some people are unable or unwilling to research.

(and no, I haven't read the paper, so apologies if the matter is covered there)

zagfles

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

BarelySentientAI

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

Do you write headlines for tabloids?

Decision by government =/= "tax".

The government mandated seatbelts for cars.  Doesn't mean that part of the price of a car is a "seatbelt tax".

People love to throw the word "tax" around because nobody likes paying tax and it's a shorthand for "I want this to be cheaper".

zagfles

BarelySentientAI said:

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

Do you write headlines for tabloids?

Decision by government =/= "tax".

The government mandated seatbelts for cars.  Doesn't mean that part of the price of a car is a "seatbelt tax".

People love to throw the word "tax" around because nobody likes paying tax and it's a shorthand for "I want this to be cheaper".

I was half expecting that sort of strawman. I've said nothing about wanting it to be cheaper, or even that it we shouldn't be taxed via energy bills. Just that it should be recognised as a tax if the govt mandates that one group should subsidise another. 

Comparing with general H&S regulations is laughable. They aren't a subsidy from one group to another. I wouldn't call it a "tax" that part of the standing charge goes towards maintaining a safe supply infrastructure subject to all sorts of H&S rules. 

debitcardmayhem

BarelySentientAI said:

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

Do you write headlines for tabloids?

Decision by government =/= "tax".

The government mandated seatbelts for cars.  Doesn't mean that part of the price of a car is a "seatbelt tax".

People love to throw the word "tax" around because nobody likes paying tax and it's a shorthand for "I want this to be cheaper".

But 4.76% of SC (and indeed the cost of kWh) is tax💷

BarelySentientAI

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

I was half expecting that sort of strawman. I've said nothing about wanting it to be cheaper, or even that it we shouldn't be taxed via energy bills. Just that it should be recognised as a tax if the govt mandates that one group should subsidise another. 

Comparing with general H&S regulations is laughable. They aren't a subsidy from one group to another. I wouldn't call it a "tax" that part of the standing charge goes towards maintaining a safe supply infrastructure subject to all sorts of H&S rules. 

"any decision by the govt that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers" becomes "if the govt mandates that one group should subsidise another"

Changing your story doesn't make my reply a strawman.  Just means you noticed that your original point wasn't a good argument.

Qyburn

zagfles said:

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, 

You don't want to pay yourself, but don't have an alternative to suggest.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

Are there any social tariffs?

zagfles

debitcardmayhem said:

BarelySentientAI said:

zagfles said:

Qyburn said:

zagfles said:

The govt is the cause of higher standing charges, they're mainly a stealth tax to pay for "social" tariffs, environmental initiatives, and failed suppliers. 

Policy costs account for only about 3p per day, although I agree those should really come from general taxation. That's a non-party political matter, no government wants to increase taxes, whereas suppliers will get the blame for high standing charges.

Who do you think should pay SOLR costs? Should they be borne by the customers of the failed supplier, disconnect them until they cough up their share? After all they benefited from cheaper prices by signing up with Symbio, Neo etc.

I would support losing credit balances. Even though I would have lost out by around £140 when Iresa went bust, I must have saved much more than that by hopping from one cheapskate supplier to another.

I'm not sure who should pay, but that's not the issue, just the fact that any decision by the govt, or by govt quangos, that suppliers must act in a particular way at a cost to their customers, for instance social tariffs, equalising prepayment meter costs with DD costs even though the latter are more expensive for the suppliers, environmental stuff, and bailing out customers of failed suppliers etc should be recognised for what it is, ie a tax. 

Do you write headlines for tabloids?

Decision by government =/= "tax".

The government mandated seatbelts for cars.  Doesn't mean that part of the price of a car is a "seatbelt tax".

People love to throw the word "tax" around because nobody likes paying tax and it's a shorthand for "I want this to be cheaper".

But 4.76% of SC (and indeed the cost of kWh) is tax💷

An honest tax, as it's itemised as a tax.