Tomato Energy (Electric Only Supplier) - Too Good To Be True ?

JohnPo

masonic said:

JohnPo said:

So I have a 'decided' ombudsman decision against Tomato for 'mis-selling - online' which was confirmed on the 13th June based on their incorrect website pricing in November last year.  They have until the 11th July to implement the decision (financial redress).

I'd almost like to run a sweep stake as to whether I actually get to see the £160  awarded to me - LOL!

They owe me £80, but it will be another 7 weeks before I can even go to the Ombudsman. I am rooting for them to survive at least that long.

Meanwhile, so far this month, I have actually made a saving on Agile Octopus, though I don't expect that to continue, especially with everything kicking off in the middle east.

I started the Ombudsman process in early April it took 6 weeks to get to a decision and another 2 weeks to get that confirmed and now another 4 weeks supposedly to the decision implemented so 3 months in total.  Best of luck!

HillStreetBlues

JohnPo said:

There is a new .pdf document which sets out the reasons for confirming the provisional order.  Bottom of page 2 & top of page 3 makes the most interesting reading:  Everything was decided on Friday 13th June but not published until today.

Reasons for confirming the provisional order

I. Based on the information received by the Authority directly from Tomato Energy, the Authority is satisfied that Tomato Energy is contravening or is likely to contravene SLCs 4A, 4B.1 and 4B.8.
J. The Authority is minded to confirm the Provisional Order with modifications on the grounds that it is satisfied, in light of the matters set out in this Notice, that Tomato Energy is contravening or is likely to contravene SLCs 4A, 4B.1 and 4B.8.
Consequently, the provisions made by the Provisional Order with modifications are still requisite for the purpose of securing compliance with SLC 4A, SLC 4B.1 and SLC 4B.8.

The facts surrounding the Authority’s decision on contraventions

K. The Authority has considered information obtained since the Provisional Order was made. The particular behaviours of concern relate to:
1) Tomato Energy has not provided evidence of robust internal capabilities, systems and processes, as required by SLC 4A, that would enable it to comply with its legislative and regulatory obligations, including, but not limited to, those under SLCs 4B.1, 4B.8 and SLC 4B.9.
2) Tomato Energy has not provided evidence that it is able to obtain and maintain Liquidity of sufficient amount and Quality so that it is able to meet its reasonably anticipated financial liabilities as they fall due on an ongoing basis as required by SLC 4B.1.
3) Tomato Energy has not, at all times, notified the Authority of Trigger Points as required by SLC 4B.8 either:
i. as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 7 days after it becomes aware that there is a Material risk that any of the Trigger Points set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of SLC 4B.8 will occur; and
ii. as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 7 days after it becomes aware that any of the Trigger Points in SLC 4B.8 have occurred.

So with that and the active winding up petition lead by HMRC and joined by the additional creditor Doctor Cost Limited TA Dr Cost at the end of last week - things do not look great !

As the Black Knight said "Tis but a scratch!"

Telegraph_Sam

Crystal ball technology or not, if TE does in the end go under - and there must be at least a probability of this happening - the question has to be: if the (time limited) savings against say Agile make the uncertainty and hassle of a SOLR  switch worth it. I'll take some convincing.

tlcgrantham

Telegraph_Sam said:

Crystal ball technology or not, if TE does in the end go under - and there must be at least a probability of this happening - the question has to be: if the (time limited) savings against say Agile make the uncertainty and hassle of a SOLR  switch worth it. I'll take some convincing.

I agree savings against Agile haven’t been large (10p per day SC and 1pKwh on average). However the uncertainty of prices changing every 30mins is also a hassle compared to fixed prices for a year.

Doc_N

And, depending very much on events in the Middle East, a fixed price contract might prove very advantageous.

Netexporter

Doc_N said:

And, depending very much on events in the Middle East, a fixed price contract might prove very advantageous.

Only providing that the supplier is properly hedged. Otherwise it will be the Ukraine fall-out all over again.

Doc_N

Netexporter said:

Doc_N said:

And, depending very much on events in the Middle East, a fixed price contract might prove very advantageous.

Only providing that the supplier is properly hedged. Otherwise it will be the Ukraine fall-out all over again.

Absolutely.  I'm fixed with Octopus at the moment at reasonably good rates.  I'd move, but there's nothing better around at present, apart from Outfox the Market and they don't offer an export tariff.

EssexHebridean

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Alex_ST said:

tlcgrantham said:

   From my point of view as a happy customer Tomato are the best energy supplier I’ve ever been with.  

Price, Tariff options, Customer Sevice, MYWatts APP and Billing are all superior to anything I’ve experienced before. 

Agreed. I have had a LOT of trouble with energy suppliers over the years. Scottish power, octopus, utility warehouse all managed to make a real mess of my complex account. 

All have been ordered to pay compensation to customers for these failures. My experience with Tomato has been very good. The tariff is excellent & has been applied correctly from day 1. I am saving hundreds £££. The bills arrive once a month and I only have to pay what I use—not some randomly assessed (usually too high) direct debit which means the energy company sits on my money half the year. 

If there are any issues I can phone, speak to a UK agent straight away and get things sorted immediately. I’ve literally never experienced that with another energy supplier. 

Those of you rooting for their failure & trying to expedite it by scaring customers into leaving need to get a more productive hobby, I would suggest. 

Same old faces still jumping with joy at the thought of TE going under, and who all jumped away from TE, but who are now grinding their teeth every day TE exists over the fact that the people who stuck with them are all still enjoying way cheaper SC and tariff rates, and they are not............but wait until  September, and if TE are still here, they will all be all crawling back to TE on their bellies, quietly of course, like the boothy lawyers thay have all turned out to be.

Go TE, continue to prove these crystal ball frauds totally wrong.

Literally nobody here wants to see TE go under - why would we, when their failure will simply see EVERYONE end up paying more money?  The flipside though is as alluded to above - one has to question why exactly people are reacting to anything negative about Tomato as though someone had called their Mother's morals into question - although come to think of it, perhaps it is because they know full well that the company in question's morals might well be called into question, and for good reason?! 

Ultimately, solid companies with a sustainable business model don't see a constant parade of sanctions from their overseeing body, winding up petitions etc... that's not cheering for Tomato's demise, it's stating facts. 

bob2302

EssexHebridean said:

Literally nobody here wants to see TE go under - why would we, when their failure will simply see EVERYONE end up paying more money?  T

There are people that left early, or that tried and failed to sign-up, that need the grapes to be sour. There is far too much glee for your statement to be true

born_again

Could not care less one way or the other if they survive or not. Only people that I would feel for are the staff that would be losing their jobs. 
It really is time that any new players in the energy market place are fully monitored by the regulator for at least 2 years to make sure that they are competent to run a energy company, have the funding in place & are limited on growth, so they do not exceed their capacity to run a stable & growing company. 
As well as the directors have to personally responsible for any failures, be that internal or financial. So need to have provided a personal guarantee, with funds set aside to cover their responsibility.