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

JohnPo

Bit of progress with the SOLR, it appears an online electricity account has been setup at BG with details that come from Tomato. I simply put my email address into the BG login https://www.britishgas.co.uk/identity/ it invited me to do a password reset and details of start date of 18/11 with 'welcome tomato energy' tariff listed.  I would suggest for those folk who had switched and were worried that BG might try and sweep you up in SOLR, then it might we worth trying to see if an online account has been set up with BG.

EssexHebridean

matt_drummer said:

crumpet_man said:

Money, money , money, me, me, me!

That's why the directors of Tomato Energy started the company!

That is why everybody starts a business, that is the very definition of a business, it's not a crime. No business will ever succeed if it doesn't make a profit.

Nobody needs monetary compensation for every little thing that goes wrong in life,

Soon we'll be claiming because somebody pulled out on us at a junction or somebody failed to hold a door open for us.

It's pathetic, we don't need to be paid for every little mistake that other people make.

This venture was `willed' to fail from the start.

There's no doubt that the management of this company was incompetent but I have no faith that any genuine competent people would stand much chance of success either.

And that is because too many people are out for what they can get for themselves.

Matt your accusations that it was people requesting compensation they were rightfully entitled to that caused tomato’s downfall are out of line IMO, and your direct attack on another poster for this even more so.  My general assumption is that the majority of the regular posters on MSE are here because we shop around for good deals and aim to get the best value for the things we have to buy. Indeed, many people have no choice but to do that, money is too tight not to. When going to an energy company we also have a right to expect that company will meet certain standards - and if they fail to meet those standards, they face penalties which are clearly set out and stated by the regulator, or on occasion which may be decided by the Ombudsman serve. We know this, and Tomato also knew this. 

The whole issue with Tomato from the very start was that an awful lot of us felt that they did not have a sustainable business model - they simply seemed to be promising things they couldn’t deliver. Subsequently they also seemed to be behaving (trading) in an unethical way - that was certainly a reason why I (and others) decided against becoming customers. Others chose to give them a go - but they were never a charity and accordingly there was no need to accept them making really quite substantial failings, in some cases - where compensation was due then it was absolutely fair and reasonable for people to expect that it was paid. 

masonic

It's worth also remembering that outgoing suppliers were forced to pay compensation to customers switching to Tomato purely because Tomato couldn't process the industry flows required to validate the opening meter readings of those customers. In many cases that happened automatically without the customer even asking, which is the intention of the legislation. That is one aspect of the standards of performance legislation that is unfair. The new supplier ought to be able to reclaim this compensation from the new supplier when the final bill cannot be issued due to the new supplier failing to comply with its obligations.

These outgoing suppliers had to pay this compensation, whereas many who are owed compensation by Tomato will not receive it, including the poster quoted in the earlier post.

matt_drummer

EssexHebridean said:

matt_drummer said:

crumpet_man said:

Money, money , money, me, me, me!

That's why the directors of Tomato Energy started the company!

That is why everybody starts a business, that is the very definition of a business, it's not a crime. No business will ever succeed if it doesn't make a profit.

Nobody needs monetary compensation for every little thing that goes wrong in life,

Soon we'll be claiming because somebody pulled out on us at a junction or somebody failed to hold a door open for us.

It's pathetic, we don't need to be paid for every little mistake that other people make.

This venture was `willed' to fail from the start.

There's no doubt that the management of this company was incompetent but I have no faith that any genuine competent people would stand much chance of success either.

And that is because too many people are out for what they can get for themselves.

Matt your accusations that it was people requesting compensation they were rightfully entitled to that caused tomato’s downfall are out of line IMO, and your direct attack on another poster for this even more so.  My general assumption is that the majority of the regular posters on MSE are here because we shop around for good deals and aim to get the best value for the things we have to buy. Indeed, many people have no choice but to do that, money is too tight not to. When going to an energy company we also have a right to expect that company will meet certain standards - and if they fail to meet those standards, they face penalties which are clearly set out and stated by the regulator, or on occasion which may be decided by the Ombudsman serve. We know this, and Tomato also knew this. 

The whole issue with Tomato from the very start was that an awful lot of us felt that they did not have a sustainable business model - they simply seemed to be promising things they couldn’t deliver. Subsequently they also seemed to be behaving (trading) in an unethical way - that was certainly a reason why I (and others) decided against becoming customers. Others chose to give them a go - but they were never a charity and accordingly there was no need to accept them making really quite substantial failings, in some cases - where compensation was due then it was absolutely fair and reasonable for people to expect that it was paid. 

Paying compensation to people who you haven't even made any money from did contribute to the downfall, it is a contributory factor. I said it contributed and never said it was the cause.

People are `rightfully' due the compensation payments because the regulator says so.

That doesn't make them rightful or justified in my opinion, and that is all it is.

I haven't attacked anybody and I have removed the name now just to make sure, I quoted a post from a forum member demonstrating the compensation payments that they were legally entitled to, in that case £80 for not getting a final bill on time. I do remember that forum user at the time hoping their final bill would be late so that they would get their compensation! I am sure they even said that they wouldn't be reminding them to increase the chances of the bill being late. The final bill being late didn't concern them, getting £80 of free money did.

Where's all this compensation coming from in the end?

Ultimately the people who didn't get paid by Tomato.

And those people will will be recovering it from us one way or another. So people like me will end up paying a small part of other people's compensation payments.

I will also be paying my small share for the unsustainably cheap energy that Tomato's customers enjoyed.

So what I see is people joining an energy company that they didn't expect to last, milking it for all they could get safe in the knowledge that it's all totally risk free. A good chance of free money from compensation for poor service, you might not get billed and have to pay for your electricity, and the worst that can happen is that you go on a standard electricity tariff for a while. Your money is safe and the debts created by your supplier on your behalf will be covered by the rest of us.

It shouldn't be allowed to happen

masonic

The legislation was passed by Parliament with the intention of preventing the situation where customers are billed months after they left an energy supplier. The compensation is £40 for failing to bill within 6 weeks of the customer leaving. The other £40 is for failing to comply with this within 10 working days.

The measure was effective in Tomato's case, because from around September, all reports from those leaving indicated that they received a correct final bill well within the 6 week timeframe. In some cases much more quickly.