MSE News: Octopus Energy to take on Iresa's 90,000 customers - here's what you need to know

17810121332

Comments

  • brewerdave
    brewerdave Posts: 8,489
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    martyp wrote: »
    This is just a thought but could the possible downfall have been that Iresa anticipated a much larger customer base and bought 'in bulk' as such for that but were unable to cope. As a result they had issues with customer service and technical side resulting in the ofgem cap on new customers so they were unable to fulfil their energy purchase obligations? They maybe tried to save money with the customer service element which resulted in their demise? I don't know anything about purchase of energy etc. so that concept may be totally illogical but there are other suppliers able to offer cheap tariffs and they don't all go bust so they must have ways of making savings somewhere that they can pass on to the customer.


    Personally, I think that the offers they made to retain customers were a major contributor to their failure.
    I have been with them since Feb '17 -Flex 4 tariffs were very good and in line with the best deals then available.
    I was resigned to paying (quite) a bit more when the tariff ended end of Feb, BUT Iresa made an offer with Flex 5 which seemed just too good - grabbed it anyway ( as a good MoneySaver should:)).
    I do wonder how many of the relatively new suppliers are going to be around in a couple of years - but the savings are just too good to miss ,even if there is a bit of inconvenience if the supplier goes bust. :(
  • oldwiring
    oldwiring Posts: 2,452
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    martyp wrote: »
    I feel a little like people are starting to troll this thread a bit to point fingers and mock Iresa customers with a 'told you so' now they've gone bust.
    I'm happy for everyone that isn't with Iresa and has maybe paid more for the privilege of having a supplier that is more sustainable but I don't think it's fair to now have a go at those who stuck with Iresa until the end and saved some money as a result (quite a lot in many cases) as they're simply thinking of works best for their finances which in the end is what this site is for.

    :) I don't think so, at least in my case, and I hope all get on well with their new suppliers. All right paying top whack in a competitive market without excellent and special benefits is not sensible, but nor is opting for the lowest with the troubles it often brings.
  • oldwiring
    oldwiring Posts: 2,452
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    martyp wrote: »
    Looks like an interesting article although it asks me to subscribe to FT. :(


    Realistically I didn't go with them in the hope they'd go bust as it's not really a win for me that happening as it is hassle switching again to a potentially much higher tariff which might be the cheapest available at that point. I'm sure the thousands of other Iresa customers probably had at least some idea of the problems and me personally I hoped they'd sort themselves out and considered that all new suppliers are liable to have problems potentially (I guess for many Iresa had many).
    Although like beardiedog says it's not down to the consumer how the supplier manages their business model. As a consumer I'm only looking to pay less for the same product available from a number of suppliers. I'd rather save myself money and maybe try and support a small new company than fund directors pockets for big companies etc. I don't look too much into the background or sustainability of an energy company when choosing them, just the same as probably many people - do a search and switch to the cheapest and consider the feedback. On the point of feedback also, people always have a tendency these days to shout about negative experiences more than positive ones so having a handful of people with bad experiences can make a company look much worse than it is so I always take feedback with a pinch of salt too (although do respect there was a big impact with Iresa).
    It's an insurance policy by Ofgem if anything, I don't know the details of this levy but it's no doubt like things such as car insurance where you could be claim free but annoyed by people making lots of claims or false claims and bumping costs up.
    Is it much different to financial compensation for banks etc? Surely it's up to Ofgem and the government to determine to control suppliers etc. If they dish out licences for it easily and they fail then the consumer shouldn't suffer.
    I had a credit balance over £100 so should I not be allowed that back or have it reduced?

    Should Iresa customers be punished then for their supplier going bust just because they were choosing the cheapest supplier when doing a search? Would that apply to people that purchase good and services elsewhere and the places go bust? Unless you're following the financial standing of all the places you interact with you can't always be sure how long they'll be around for. I can appreciate Iresa were seen as a sinking ship but it would seem unfair to punish people that rely on the scheme by Ofgem to help those people out when a supplier goes bust.
    It's not like they went with Iresa as some kind of scam or act of fraud or anything.

    In my view it was literally - they'll save me the most money, they'd been around for a little while so may have some issues (at the time) and some people had some bad experiences with them (at the time).
    So it was simply being the same as no doubt all the other Iresa customers, a case of wanting to save money...

    :) Sorry about the link, which I got indirectly from another new site, which now I cannot find. Perhaps that was why I managed to load it.

    Feedback depends on the business, article and provider, and thre is one I would not trust. Also IMO nothing over two years is appropriate.

    Punishment! With energy OFGEM prevents that, but elsewhere a business failure leaves a buyer ab unsecured creditor, unless a credit card has been used for something £100+, when section 75 of the consumer credit act may apply.
  • brewerdave
    brewerdave Posts: 8,489
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    oldwiring wrote: »

    Punishment! With energy OFGEM prevents that, but elsewhere a business failure leaves a buyer ab unsecured creditor, unless a credit card has been used for something £100+, when section 75 of the consumer credit act may apply.




    If OFGEM imposed much more onerous conditions on potential new suppliers then the "safety net" would not be needed HOWEVER I suspect few (if any) would be set up - so back to the "big 6" cartel - and a huge reduction in switching ,which goes against the Govt's stated aims!!:)
  • Raxiel
    Raxiel Posts: 1,398
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Hello Raxiel and understand your concern.

    Much of the change of supplier process is automated, particularly in the early stages. It's only later an advisor becomes involved and by then it might be too late to stop a switch. In this case, we'll need to take the supply back though the Erroneous Transfer route.

    A good indicator is where there's an online account. This is locked down very early in a switch, again remotely. You won't be able to do things like enter meter readings or change tariff. If you spot this please contact Octopus. They'll hopefully be able to cancel the switch as it could still be within the cooling off period. If not, ask them to return it to us as an Erroneous Gain.

    I'll be happy to check for you, too, if you drop an email to the address in my Profile with your details. Please mark this for both my attention and Helena as I'm not always around.

    Hopefully nothing will happen but happy to check manually for you.

    Malc


    Thanks Malc,


    I did reply to the email Octopus sent, and someone responded with a reassurance that they know the 'customer list' they received is inaccurate and will be checking the database before starting any switches.


    Even so, I'll keep an eye on things myself and will drop you a line if I think it becomes necessary.
    3.6 kW PV in the Midlands - 9x Sharp 400W black panels - 6x facing SE and 3x facing SW, Solaredge Optimisers and Inverter. 400W Derril Water (one day). Octopus Flux
  • oldwiring
    oldwiring Posts: 2,452
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    brewerdave wrote: »
    If OFGEM imposed much more onerous conditions on potential new suppliers then the "safety net" would not be needed HOWEVER I suspect few (if any) would be set up - so back to the "big 6" cartel - and a huge reduction in switching ,which goes against the Govt's stated aims!!:)

    But that switching, per se, creates costs, which in the end up on our bills. To be totally cynical those jobs needed for the switch ' industry' do create employment, yet of what real worth?
  • matelodave
    matelodave Posts: 8,583
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    oldwiring wrote: »
    But that switching, per se, creates costs, which in the end up on our bills. To be totally cynical those jobs needed for the switch ' industry' do create employment, yet of what real worth?

    There are lots of jobs that don't really need doing but seem to be there to keep the money moving around the system.

    Just consider what value many of the jobs in government departments add.
    Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers
  • ProDave
    ProDave Posts: 3,660
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    martyp wrote: »
    Just noticed an estimated (quite accurate too) reading on mine too as:
    "Deemed (Settlement Registers) or Estimated (Non-Settlement Registers)" for 1st August.
    Did you respond to that e-mail about your plans to stay or leave?
    I too have this settlement reading. Shame it is 20 units lower than the actual reading I submitted on the 1st. Shame they could not even get that right.
  • oldwiring
    oldwiring Posts: 2,452
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    matelodave wrote: »
    There are lots of jobs that don't really need doing but seem to be there to keep the money moving around the system.

    Just consider what value many of the jobs in government departments add.

    Adding value is a crude criterion to judge a job's worth. A modern society needs them to make it work. For instance where is my state pension coming from without those jobs?
  • psamuel
    psamuel Posts: 40
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    I have responded to leave.
    Anything over £20 and I tend to leave.
    Just changed my gas to Ebico, may go duel fuel which I have not done in years, their prices look good though on a fixed 18 month term.
    I have always changed and iresa was the first problem I have encountered, even then it was an mpn number entry on transfer which an email could have rectified quite easily.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards