Warm Home Discount 2025-26

HillStreetBlues

I think it works out to about £15 on every household bill over the year, for those who do get the £150, they are actually £135 better off.

EDIT thanks NedS  for correct figures.

NedS

HillStreetBlues said:

I think it works out to about £15 on every household bill over the year, for those who do get the £150, they are actually £135 better off.

A quick google of some statistics appears to show that maybe 20% of UK households are in receipt of UC (~6M out of ~29M) which would mean each household would need to contribute around £30 for the 6M households to each receive £150.

It's difficult to get accurate numbers as UC household is defined in terms of benefit units, but I think the large increase/discrepancy could be based on the wider eligibility. Some earlier reports suggested the WHD scheme raised around £553M, but with around 6M eligible UC households, this figure will now need to be £900M, almost double (hence the £15 to £30 estimate above), and if correct, as you say diminishes the 'value' further to those receiving it, to closer to £120.

Newcad

Don't forget that the original £140, now £150, credit was worth a lot more before energy prices went mad.

The gov. didn't feel the need to increase it for the 'crisis' because of the £67 a month that everyone got for a while.

JKenH

HillStreetBlues said:

JKenH said:

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

Your figures are incorrect, it was 50,000 in 22/23  since 23/24 it's 1000 domestic customers https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/warm-home-discount-whd/warm-home-discount-whd-suppliers
The amount of suppliers under 1000 will be negligible.

Ok, but is that up to date? This is what USwitch say on their website. 

Which energy suppliers offer the Warm Home Discount?

Any energy supplier with more than 150,000 customers is obliged to offer the Warm Home Discount scheme to eligible groups – this includes all big six energy providers. In addition, some smaller suppliers offer the Warm Home Discount to their customers voluntarily.

https://www.uswitch.com/gas-electricity/guides/warm-home-discount/

kaMelo

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/warm-home-discount-whd

From scheme year 13 (2023/24) onwards suppliers with over 1,000 domestic customers are obligated to participate. This will enable more eligible customers to benefit from the WHD scheme.

Spoonie_Turtle

JKenH said:

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

I think you have misunderstood a bit.  It is one of the set policy costs that makes up the SVT; for other, non-standard tariffs suppliers can choose how they divide up the money received from customers to cover the different costs of supply and their other obligations. 

Put simply, the money for policy costs goes to the government, then the government allocates funding from the central WHD pot to suppliers based on how many eligible customers they each have on the qualifying date.

So while yes customers are ultimately paying for it, they're not disproportionately paying based on how many WHD qualifying customers their specific supplier has.  It is pretty much a levy, although it's not a flat rate nor the exact same % for everyone, as not everyone is on the SVT - but people choosing any tariff other than the SVT have to make an active choice to accept the unit rate and standing charge, so nobody's paying more for their energy and supply than they've agreed to.

JKenH

kaMelo said:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/warm-home-discount-whd

From scheme year 13 (2023/24) onwards suppliers with over 1,000 domestic customers are obligated to participate. This will enable more eligible customers to benefit from the WHD scheme.

Fair enough. It seems like USwitch haven’t updated the obligated suppliers figure in their WHD 2025-26 advice. 

JKenH

Spoonie_Turtle said:

JKenH said:

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

I think you have misunderstood a bit.  It is one of the set policy costs that makes up the SVT; for other, non-standard tariffs suppliers can choose how they divide up the money received from customers to cover the different costs of supply and their other obligations. 

Put simply, the money for policy costs goes to the government, then the government allocates funding from the central WHD pot to suppliers based on how many eligible customers they each have on the qualifying date.

So while yes customers are ultimately paying for it, they're not disproportionately paying based on how many WHD qualifying customers their specific supplier has.  It is pretty much a levy, although it's not a flat rate nor the exact same % for everyone, as not everyone is on the SVT - but people choosing any tariff other than the SVT have to make an active choice to accept the unit rate and standing charge, so nobody's paying more for their energy and supply than they've agreed to.

Thanks for that clarification. It is amazing how governments can make policies so complicated. Why not just give all qualifying customers the rebate in with their benefits? It seems to create a lot of work for electricity suppliers. 

Newcad

Lots of advice articles are out of date with the latest 2025 updates to the WHD.

The energy supply companies own websites will only talk about last years WHD scheme until they are sure what is happening this year.

Unfortunately with some things on tbe InterWeb you don't know, can't  easily tell. if it was written last week or written last year.

Spoonie_Turtle

JKenH said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

JKenH said:

Going back to WHD. If I have understood this correctly, the WHD is given by the energy supplier but not all energy suppliers are required to participate in the scheme - those with less than 150,000 customers are exempt. I also believe that the WHD is funded by the suppliers so those with a large number of customers eligible for WHD will face a bigger bill than those whose customer base has a lower WHD eligibility rate. The cost of funding this discount/rebate is I believe then passed on to other customers of that supplier, i.e. it is not centrally funded as a levy by HMG on all customers. Customers of those suppliers who are too small to participate in the scheme appear therefore to avoid this extra charge on the bills but customers of those suppliers with high WHD take up will face a disproportionately high levy from their suppliers. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that many customers who are eligible for WHD are not particularly energy savvy and as a consequence are on SVTs with SVT biased suppliers rather than the smart tariffs with the likes of Octopus, that many of us on these forums are aware of. Hence this policy may me quite discriminatory/regressive.

i apologise if all this has been discussed before and of course I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the situation. 

I think you have misunderstood a bit.  It is one of the set policy costs that makes up the SVT; for other, non-standard tariffs suppliers can choose how they divide up the money received from customers to cover the different costs of supply and their other obligations. 

Put simply, the money for policy costs goes to the government, then the government allocates funding from the central WHD pot to suppliers based on how many eligible customers they each have on the qualifying date.

So while yes customers are ultimately paying for it, they're not disproportionately paying based on how many WHD qualifying customers their specific supplier has.  It is pretty much a levy, although it's not a flat rate nor the exact same % for everyone, as not everyone is on the SVT - but people choosing any tariff other than the SVT have to make an active choice to accept the unit rate and standing charge, so nobody's paying more for their energy and supply than they've agreed to.

Thanks for that clarification. It is amazing how governments can make policies so complicated. Why not just give all qualifying customers the rebate in with their benefits? It seems to create a lot of work for electricity suppliers. 

One reason is because it's per household / meter point, whereas you can have multiple people claiming their own individual benefits living in the same household (a roommate / adult child situation, not counting couples which would be a joint claim).

Administering anything costs money; it would have been extra work either way.  The previous system in England and Wales used to be that people applied for it (and still is in Scotland) so that's probably one of the original reasons it was a supplier obligation in the first place.