Changing electricity suppliers.

[zaax]

and don't forget EBICO is non profit making company

[endymion]

I have no dispute with British Gas. I had a new meter at their instigation not mine and so found out my old was had been misreading. I paid them what they asked for even though it was over the top. I didnt argue. I did argue about being asked for a £240 DD a couple of months back on the grounds I did not use that amount of electric. The agreed £120 but now have sent a letter saying they want to put that up to £180 to account for the rise in electricity charges. I guess that at best means they are about to raise the cost of their electric again ( they raied it a couple of months back.)

I gave them a direct debit because I got a discount on it. That said, they have rarely read my meter in the last two years, they constantly estimated it even when a meter reader called and read it. I let it go because I was too busy working all hours and too tired to do anything else.

It all came to light after they put a new meter in and my electric reduced significantly. I know I had a faulty heater but not as faulty as their meter we found out.

>

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:21:06 -0000 someone who may be "endymion" wrote this:-

My electricity supplier and my gas supplier both take note of meter readings which I send them and the occasional meter reading a meter reader takes. Both sorts appear on the bill and are used to correct estimates, which are now fairly accurate from both of them. If the estimate is too far out I insist on a correct bill before I pay a penny.

It took some robust letters to bring them into line, but both have now behaved themselves reasonably well for a while. It must be time for one or both of them to go haywire and deserve some more robust treatment:-(

Note that both suppliers are not one of the big six. Therefore they care about my custom, to some extent, the big six couldn't care less about customers.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:44:28 -0000 someone who may be "Simon Finnigan" wrote this:-

Sounds very sensible to me. Free market enthusiasts may think that everyone has the time and/or inclination to compare 101 competing suppliers every few months for a whole host of services, but most people don't have the time to waste on such activities.

A socially responsible company with no investors wanting ever rising dividends is going to be attractive to many in the long term. ISTR reading on their web site some time ago that they gave their profits one year to a couple of community groups.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:50:51 +0000 someone who may be Alan wrote this:-

Except when the charge per unit does not vary according to the number of units. That is a con anyway, it is actually the standing charge, but disguised to allow the company to claim that they don't have a standing charge.

Some suppliers have no standing charge and the same price per unit. Some suppliers do have a standing charge and the same price per unit. Both are honest approaches.

[Alan]

In message , David Hansen wrote

Although it may be more honest to quote the real standing charges it means that you cannot just compare the price per unit to find the cheapest supplier. The price per unit excludes standing charges and any discounts that you may get from the payment method.

[chris French]

I'm not with them, but when I recently checked our suppliers/tariffs EBICO were much more expensive - for gas anyway, can't remember about elec. But then we have silly gas bills here - biggish, victorian house, solid walls, some roofs poorly insulated, a fair amount of single glazing, old heating/HW system that still awaiting improvements etc.

[chris French]

In message , endymion writes

Not really surprising, they are all working with the same figures. And lots of the sites use the same backends, just with different branding. When I most recently did this, I found Simply Switch the better of the sites I tried for usability.

Are you giving them consumption figures, or the financial cost? if the latter, they have to extrapolate the consumption from the cost, which is always going to vary. Anyway ignore the 'savings', just look at the bills you would get

Anyway, after getting the likely candidates from a comparison site Take the tariff figures and then do your own calcs, or stick them in a little spreadsheet to check which will be best.

[Simon Finnigan]

We don`t use much gas, but use more electricity than normal. The logic being that having a PC on all the time kicking out heat in the room i`m in means the heating can be left off :-)

Also I`d rather avoid a few of the other companies supplying gas/electricity due to their very poor service, and would rather pay a bit more to get good service.

[chris French]

In message , Alan writes

Exactly, a couple of years ago I moved to BG 'cos they were the cheapest for elec. (for our consumption, for the billing arrangements and the tariff I am on , YMMV) I've recently checked the suppliers again, BG are the second cheapest on current tariffs (though only by £10).

>

[Stephen Howard]

For what it's worth I'd avoid Scottish Power like the plague. I've been dealing with them for years over the 'no bills for three years' debacle, and the level of administrative incompetence to be found there beggars belief. My last major run-in with them resulted in Energywatch getting involved and £500 being deducted from my bill by way of an apology. Had another £20 off them last week for being the numpties they are.

I wouldn't trust them to run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery, even if they'd just come back from an international training course in organising piss-ups in breweries.

Bear in mind too that Energywatch no longer exists. They didn't seem to have that many powers in the first place, but the 'consumer advice' group that's supposed to be a replacement has even less ( as the very nice man on the phone ruefully noted ). If you do go with them I would most strongly advise any communication with them is by letter - you might well find that ( as Henry Crun advises ) you've must have the documents.

Regards,

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:05:12 +0000 someone who may be Stephen Howard wrote this:-

I sometimes told them that they gave a very good impression of being the public relations department of large suppliers and if that wasn't the impression they wanted to give then they had better do something radical.

Does it? My impression is that they have the same "powers", limited as they are. However, in true New Britain fashion, they have been amalgamated with other organisations and thus any member of staff is unlikely to know as much about electricity and gas as Energywatch staff did. Presumably some staff have transferred and thus for a while one might be lucky and deal with former Energywatch staff.

[Stephen Howard]

I got reasonable results from them, but then I had a rock-solid and extreme case. I suspect if I had had less then very little would have happened. I also made it pretty clear I was 'miffed'.

That's what the chap who answered my call told me - and had I brought this latest issue to the attention of Energywatch I know they would have acted on my behalf. In this instance I was told that it was up to me to sort it out - or use the ombudsman.

Regards,

[Colin Wilson]

Funnily enough, those are my thoughts exactly - and when you see any excess being given to community projects, it's a case of "better them than a shareholders' piss-up"

[Simon Finnigan]

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

And to be honest I don`t think I am paying that much more. Had a less than stellar performance from a high-street retailer today (email me for more info, can`t make it public) and it really did emphasise that quality of service is very important.

[Frank Erskine]

It would be better if 'excess' (whatever that might be) was to be given back to the customers who overpaid in the first place.

[Colin Wilson]

Their margins are usually so small that it would likely cost as much to administer a refund as it would to give it to a good cause.

[Alan]

In message , Colin Wilson wrote

Surely if their margins were small their charges to customers would be tracking the wholesale market on a daily basis? Shouldn't these non-profit suppliers have much cheaper prices because they are not paying dividends to shareholders?

[The Wanderer]

When the industry was privatised in the late 1980's, because of the way the privatisation had been structured, the bulk of the profits were to be had in the 'wires' part of the business. The manner in which the industry had been regulated meant that the energy supply part of the business worked on extremely tight margins, and still do.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:43:13 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine wrote this:-

"EBICo Limited, the not-for-profit electricity and gas supply company set up to help get a better deal to low income households today (Thursday) announced that it was giving away its profits from

2006.

"'It looks like we?ll have made a small surplus of a few thousands of Pounds in 2006 after setting aside some money for contingencies', said Phil Levermore, EBICo MD. 'We?re not here to make a profit' said Phil, 'we?re here to offer energy consumers a fairer choice, so we?ve decided to donate it to a couple of organisations who can use it to tackle fuel poverty ? which is one of the key objectives of our company.'"

- warning, it is a Microshit Word file.

Any customers who were upset by not getting "their share" of a few thousand pounds were and are free to leave the company. There might have been a few customers who were upset by this, but I imagine most thought it an excellent idea which fits in with the ethos of the company.

Any customer or potential customer who wishes to be informed about the company will find where they can read of the ethos of the company.