IF Tomato Goes Bust

MWT

QrizB said:

It's probably worth noting that, as far as I can recall, we've yet not seen what happens when a smart tariff supplier goes under (one that's meant to be billing on 30-minute data). So if Tomato do fold (slice? dice? puree?) they will be the first, and it might bring complications.

I would be inclined to check the current T&Cs for anything like the Octopus terms that allow the use of the SVT if HH data is missing...

If there are any clauses like that I'd expect Administrators to make full use of them, as they would be obliged to do.

In this particular case I'm hoping they do file the, now very late, 2023 accounts for the parent company as I'm keen to see how the parent has managed to become a long-term debtor of Tomato to the tune of £5m, at the same time as Tomato is apparently paying the parent for CRM software services....

Bendo

That's where it gets fun. The current terms allow them to estimate based on appropriate unit rates. Whether it's always aaid that or not I don't know,  but based on that,  an administrator would likely apply a standard usage pattern baed on those rates which may not work out so well for many with artificially high off peak rates.

It's going to be a !!!!!! basically unless they sort out the SMETS1 issue.

pmduk

coupleuk said:

lohr500 said:

coupleuk said:

I switched to Tomato and went live with 2 addresses on September 1st last year.

They have failed to bill me despite me providing meter readings every 2 weeks or so.

Their system stopped reporting smart meter reads after the first 6 weeks and nothing since.

What happens if they go bust?

Will a "supplier of last resort" bill me at Tomato rates until the day they take over or will they bill me according to the price cap all the way back to September 1st

Are you able to get the half hourly readings going back to September using a third party service like Bright? If so, I would keep them safe and update them regularly so you can calculate what your debt should be, based on the agreed contract.

The problem is I cannot sign up to Bright without a bill dated in the last 3 months.

I was able to register for Bright using my contract.

Qyburn

coupleuk said:

The problem is I cannot sign up to Bright without a bill dated in the last 3 months.

Can't you sign up using the IHD ID?

lohr500

More bad news for Tomato Energy?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/tomato-energy-limited-provisional-order

Probably no surprise given their capability over the  past six months or so.

grandadgolfer

I sometimes get the impression people would love them to go under…..strange 

mmmmikey

grandadgolfer said:

I sometimes get the impression people would love them to go under…..strange 

For me, it's not a question of loving them to go under. My thoughts are more along the lines that if failure is pretty much inevitable, the sooner they fail the better as the less the mess that it will leave non-Tomato customers to pay to sort out via the cost of any SOLR scheme added to standing charges. 

Personally, I'd like to see a restructuring of the SOLR scheme so that much more of the cost of failure is shifted away from customers of other suppliers and on to customers of the failed supplier. My reasoning is that if customers choose an "it seems too good to be true" tariff which they will benefit from if it succeeds, it's fair game to expect those customers to take more of a hit if it fails.

MWT

grandadgolfer said:

I sometimes get the impression people would love them to go under…..strange 

Not wishing them out of business, but very happy to see robust action from Ofgem to limit the risk and scope of costs that everyone else has to pay as a consequence of a potential failure.

The immediate restriction on taking on new customers seems measured and appropriate when compared to how long previous failures we allowed to keep propping up the business in the past.

I hope they do not fail, but I will not be surprised if they do.

born_again

mmmmikey said:

grandadgolfer said:

I sometimes get the impression people would love them to go under…..strange 

For me, it's not a question of loving them to go under. My thoughts are more along the lines that if failure is pretty much inevitable, the sooner they fail the better as the less the mess that it will leave non-Tomato customers to pay to sort out via the cost of any SOLR scheme added to standing charges. 

Personally, I'd like to see a restructuring of the SOLR scheme so that much more of the cost of failure is shifted away from customers of other suppliers and on to customers of the failed supplier. My reasoning is that if customers choose an "it seems too good to be true" tariff which they will benefit from if it succeeds, it's fair game to expect those customers to take more of a hit if it fails.

Maybe less the customers & more on making the directors financially responsible for the costs. & their failure to manage the company. As they are the ones who currently walk away scot free with their wages & pensions. All ready to set up their next energy venture or in another field.
As well as Ofcom making companies pay a bond based on customer number to cover any costs as well. 

coupleuk

Personally, I'd like to see a restructuring of the SOLR scheme so that much more of the cost of failure is shifted away from customers of other suppliers and on to customers of the failed supplier. My reasoning is that if customers choose an "it seems too good to be true" tariff which they will benefit from if it succeeds, it's fair game to expect those customers to take more of a hit if it fails.

I think you probably mean the cost should be given to SHAREHOLDERS of the failed Company.

Its a bit unfair to blame customers for wanting to save money - and your suggestion would stop any new competition because nobody would ever sign up to them.