Early termination charges after receiving a Section 21 No Fault Eviction

Bradden

matt_drummer said:

The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

Not owning property doesn't stop you.. there are financial penalties for breaking the contract. Alternatively take out a contract which doesn't tie you in. No Contract Broadband – Our Best Short-Term Wi-Fi Deals | Three

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

MP1995 said:

In this instance the Landlord is selling. Even under the renters rights bill that will be a valid reason.

You could approach both your Energy supplier and Landlord and ask them both for a goodwill gesture. Neither have to do this.

This is very true, it is important to note that the reform doesnt prevent LL's choosing to sell or repurpose the property.  These are legitimate reasons to evict someone out of contract.

I have always felt fixed tariffs with heavy exit fee's need to be considered very carefully,  they often only have very small savings, which makes the exit fees inflated for the benefit.  This applies even more so for short term tenancies.

I think many people have lost sight of what fixing is for. 

The main purpose of a fix is to protect against large unexpected price rises over the duration of the contract.

I see lots of talk here about taking fixes to save money but that really isn't what they are for. If I was on a limited income where a large increase in energy costs would leave me in financial difficulty a fix would be very attractive even it was above current rates. The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

They are suited for risk averse people true so I do agree with you on that point, but you also have to take account of what you spend and your circumstances so lets say normal expenditure is £600 a year, and exit fee is £150, SVR updates 4 times a year, and we are informed ahead of time of what the upcoming changes will be and a prediction for the one after, so a 12 month fix would be for the risk averse period of about 3-6 months, if 6 months usage is £300, then its a circa 50% of that cost is an exit fee, should you for whatever reason need to bail out of the contract.

Its a exit premium for assurance, but as proven in this case, it is still risky if you are vulnerable to change of circumstances.

I think a better move for restricted income especially if you are in short term tenancy is go for whatever the cheapest is without penalty for leaving, e.g. tracker or even better agile, maximise your savings on that, leave if it gets dicey, SVR being your insurance.  The savings from that is a buffer for any cost increase that might occur.  But I suppose yeah, some people are just quite risk averse.  Both agile and tracker also fix your SC which unlike the unit rate we know is only ever going to go upwards for the forseeable, so its a partial fix with no exit fee.  This is why I feel a fix is not necessarily financially astute, its a "peace of mind" tariff.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

MP1995 said:

In this instance the Landlord is selling. Even under the renters rights bill that will be a valid reason.

You could approach both your Energy supplier and Landlord and ask them both for a goodwill gesture. Neither have to do this.

This is very true, it is important to note that the reform doesnt prevent LL's choosing to sell or repurpose the property.  These are legitimate reasons to evict someone out of contract.

I have always felt fixed tariffs with heavy exit fee's need to be considered very carefully,  they often only have very small savings, which makes the exit fees inflated for the benefit.  This applies even more so for short term tenancies.

I think many people have lost sight of what fixing is for. 

The main purpose of a fix is to protect against large unexpected price rises over the duration of the contract.

I see lots of talk here about taking fixes to save money but that really isn't what they are for. If I was on a limited income where a large increase in energy costs would leave me in financial difficulty a fix would be very attractive even it was above current rates. The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

They are suited for risk averse people true, but you also have to take account of what you spend and your circumstances so lets say normal expenditure is £600 a year, and exit fee is £150, SVR updates 4 times a year, and we are informed ahead of time of what the upcoming changes will be and a prediction for the one after, so a 12 month fix would be for the risk averse period of about 3-6 months, if 6 months usage is £300, then its a circa 50% of that cost is an exit fee, should you for whatever reason need to bail out of the contract.

Its a exit premium for assurance, but as proven in this case, it is still risky if you are vulnerable to change of circumstances.

I think a better move for restricted income especially if you are in short term tenancy is go for whatever the cheapest is without penalty for leaving, e.g. tracker or even better agile, maximise your savings on that, leave if it gets dicey, SVR being your insurance.  The savings from that is a buffer for any cost increase that might occur.  But I suppose yeah, some people are just quite risk averse.  Both agile and tracker also fix your SC which unlike the unit rate we know is only ever going to go upwards for the forseeable, so its a partial fix with no exit fee.  This is why I feel a fix is not necessarily financially astute, its a "peace of mind" tariff.

It is financially astute if you want to limit your expenditure, that's the point of a fix.

Everything else is a gamble, even the SVR isn't guaranteed, it could be removed at any time, unlikely but who knows.

Lots of people make life decisions that are far less financially astute than fixing their energy prices

There are lots of short term risks to our energy prices and I am not sure our new government have put themselves in a position to bail us out in the same way that the previous government did.

If I was on a tight budget I would want to fix for as long as possible, little to lose and loads of potential gain.

That's financially astute in my opinion.

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

MP1995 said:

In this instance the Landlord is selling. Even under the renters rights bill that will be a valid reason.

You could approach both your Energy supplier and Landlord and ask them both for a goodwill gesture. Neither have to do this.

This is very true, it is important to note that the reform doesnt prevent LL's choosing to sell or repurpose the property.  These are legitimate reasons to evict someone out of contract.

I have always felt fixed tariffs with heavy exit fee's need to be considered very carefully,  they often only have very small savings, which makes the exit fees inflated for the benefit.  This applies even more so for short term tenancies.

I think many people have lost sight of what fixing is for. 

The main purpose of a fix is to protect against large unexpected price rises over the duration of the contract.

I see lots of talk here about taking fixes to save money but that really isn't what they are for. If I was on a limited income where a large increase in energy costs would leave me in financial difficulty a fix would be very attractive even it was above current rates. The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

They are suited for risk averse people true, but you also have to take account of what you spend and your circumstances so lets say normal expenditure is £600 a year, and exit fee is £150, SVR updates 4 times a year, and we are informed ahead of time of what the upcoming changes will be and a prediction for the one after, so a 12 month fix would be for the risk averse period of about 3-6 months, if 6 months usage is £300, then its a circa 50% of that cost is an exit fee, should you for whatever reason need to bail out of the contract.

Its a exit premium for assurance, but as proven in this case, it is still risky if you are vulnerable to change of circumstances.

I think a better move for restricted income especially if you are in short term tenancy is go for whatever the cheapest is without penalty for leaving, e.g. tracker or even better agile, maximise your savings on that, leave if it gets dicey, SVR being your insurance.  The savings from that is a buffer for any cost increase that might occur.  But I suppose yeah, some people are just quite risk averse.  Both agile and tracker also fix your SC which unlike the unit rate we know is only ever going to go upwards for the forseeable, so its a partial fix with no exit fee.  This is why I feel a fix is not necessarily financially astute, its a "peace of mind" tariff.

It is financially astute if you want to limit your expenditure, that's the point of a fix.

Everything else is a gamble, even the SVR isn't guaranteed, it could be removed at any time, unlikely but who knows.

Lots of people make life decisions that are far less financially astute than fixing their energy prices

There are lots of short term risks to our energy prices and I am not sure our new government have put themselves in a position to bail us out in the same way that the previous government did.

If I was on a tight budget I would want to fix for as long as possible, little to lose and loads of potential gain.

That's financially astute in my opinion.

I think if I only had SVR as an alternative I see where you coming from, but there is a lot to lose if its much less competitive vs smart tariffs.  But regardless I do agree with what you said it is for the risk averse.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

MP1995 said:

In this instance the Landlord is selling. Even under the renters rights bill that will be a valid reason.

You could approach both your Energy supplier and Landlord and ask them both for a goodwill gesture. Neither have to do this.

This is very true, it is important to note that the reform doesnt prevent LL's choosing to sell or repurpose the property.  These are legitimate reasons to evict someone out of contract.

I have always felt fixed tariffs with heavy exit fee's need to be considered very carefully,  they often only have very small savings, which makes the exit fees inflated for the benefit.  This applies even more so for short term tenancies.

I think many people have lost sight of what fixing is for. 

The main purpose of a fix is to protect against large unexpected price rises over the duration of the contract.

I see lots of talk here about taking fixes to save money but that really isn't what they are for. If I was on a limited income where a large increase in energy costs would leave me in financial difficulty a fix would be very attractive even it was above current rates. The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

They are suited for risk averse people true, but you also have to take account of what you spend and your circumstances so lets say normal expenditure is £600 a year, and exit fee is £150, SVR updates 4 times a year, and we are informed ahead of time of what the upcoming changes will be and a prediction for the one after, so a 12 month fix would be for the risk averse period of about 3-6 months, if 6 months usage is £300, then its a circa 50% of that cost is an exit fee, should you for whatever reason need to bail out of the contract.

Its a exit premium for assurance, but as proven in this case, it is still risky if you are vulnerable to change of circumstances.

I think a better move for restricted income especially if you are in short term tenancy is go for whatever the cheapest is without penalty for leaving, e.g. tracker or even better agile, maximise your savings on that, leave if it gets dicey, SVR being your insurance.  The savings from that is a buffer for any cost increase that might occur.  But I suppose yeah, some people are just quite risk averse.  Both agile and tracker also fix your SC which unlike the unit rate we know is only ever going to go upwards for the forseeable, so its a partial fix with no exit fee.  This is why I feel a fix is not necessarily financially astute, its a "peace of mind" tariff.

It is financially astute if you want to limit your expenditure, that's the point of a fix.

Everything else is a gamble, even the SVR isn't guaranteed, it could be removed at any time, unlikely but who knows.

Lots of people make life decisions that are far less financially astute than fixing their energy prices

There are lots of short term risks to our energy prices and I am not sure our new government have put themselves in a position to bail us out in the same way that the previous government did.

If I was on a tight budget I would want to fix for as long as possible, little to lose and loads of potential gain.

That's financially astute in my opinion.

I think if I only had SVR as an alternative I see where you coming from, but there is a lot to lose if its much less competitive vs smart tariffs.  But regardless I do agree with what you said it is for the risk averse.

Smart tariffs are great, like Octopus Agile, if you are home all day.

Those people that aren't home all day, maybe those that have to go to work, might find it more difficult to guarantee a good outcome.

Kim_13

saajan_12 said:

This is arising from your choice to take out longer term utility contracts with a shorter term right to live in the property being supplied. Additionally your choice to move from that rental to somewhere that does not need the utility contract. 

Nothing unreasonable by the utility company, they aren't party to your agreements with the LL and your house moving plans. 

I have more of an issue with the broadband provider refusing to budge than the energy company. The price cap means that you always pay a fair price for energy, albeit not a great one. Thus you don’t have to fix, whereas you can’t very well do without broadband in 2024, for which you pay through the nose if you are not in a contract. It is difficult to get one for only a year now (and for all we know OP might have requested a matching term length with LL and LL refused as the rolling gave them more flexibility.) Mobile data solutions may not be a solution at all location and work circumstances depending. Rock and a hard place.

No one who previously happily lived together would go back to living in two separate properties where they could not take the contracts unless they absolutely had to.

With that said I am surprised at Octopus doing this given that they recently brought out a fix with no exit fees. I am also not sure it’s as simple as taking an energy contract with you - you inherit the supplier at a new address and have to arrange a switch from there once that supplier has set up an account for you. There might be a gap of a month before getting back to a preferred supplier, who might well have applied the fee anyway in the interim.

Canarywary

*Update*

Octopus have agreed to waive our early exit fees once we proved that we had been served a Section 21!

So to anyone in a similar situation, please don't listen to people who just say it's your own fault, and do try and challenge exit fees with your utilities suppliers, as they may indeed be understanding! I just wish I'd challenged TalkTalk more about the Broadband now.

Canarywary

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

MP1995 said:

In this instance the Landlord is selling. Even under the renters rights bill that will be a valid reason.

You could approach both your Energy supplier and Landlord and ask them both for a goodwill gesture. Neither have to do this.

This is very true, it is important to note that the reform doesnt prevent LL's choosing to sell or repurpose the property.  These are legitimate reasons to evict someone out of contract.

I have always felt fixed tariffs with heavy exit fee's need to be considered very carefully,  they often only have very small savings, which makes the exit fees inflated for the benefit.  This applies even more so for short term tenancies.

I think many people have lost sight of what fixing is for. 

The main purpose of a fix is to protect against large unexpected price rises over the duration of the contract.

I see lots of talk here about taking fixes to save money but that really isn't what they are for. If I was on a limited income where a large increase in energy costs would leave me in financial difficulty a fix would be very attractive even it was above current rates. The fact that I was in rented accommodation shouldn't stop me.

Thank you, exactly this. We wanted a fixed term contract mainly because everyone was being warned of huge price hikes during the energy crisis, and we would have struggled to afford the double/tripling that the horror stories were warning of.

mmmmikey

Canarywary said:

*Update*

Octopus have agreed to waive our early exit fees once we proved that we had been served a Section 21!

So to anyone in a similar situation, please don't listen to people who just say it's your own fault, and do try and challenge exit fees with your utilities suppliers, as they may indeed be understanding! I just wish I'd challenged TalkTalk more about the Broadband now.

That's great news - thanks for posting the update

Canarywary

*Update 2*

After the success with Octopus I felt motivated to plead with TalkTalk and they agreed to reduce their termination fee by half, which was also appreciated.