RED ARMY 2008:

ironic as it sounds edf are my cheapest tariff in my area with a saving of £65 in my m40 area.

wont be changing tho untill im in credit

Cheaper than those that haven't yet caught up with these silly increases? Are you sure?

ironic as it sounds edf are my cheapest tariff in my area with a saving of £65 in my m40 area.

wont be changing tho untill im in credit

OK back foot,if you bothered to read it they were your views i was responding too.

Lets get back to the point in question now,how to force the companies to price responsibly.

its not impossible ,the energy companies make millions each in profit some even more if they are part of a bigger group.

My head hurts.....

Mr.Barmy,

You have merged the quotes and responses into one so all of the above are unintelligable. However, even if you hadn't it wouldn't have made any difference.

Bit of a waste of time.

Well if you call a £40million loss (commerical and consumer) relatively fixed then i'd agree but that's an awful lot of money that could have gone to good use....AGREE EVEN IF THE FIGURE WAS LOW, however the fiugre is often made up and over inflated and the impact is made out to be the same.

I've no doubt the link between gas and oil is artificial or at least unfavourable, but while it is linked in such a way there is a huge cost to the supplier. Energywatch and Ofgem have been examining the link between gas and oil, and the increases to consumer prices. While they all agree the gas/oil indexing seems artificial and should be re-examined - they've begrudingly agreed that while it is in place he increases while steep, and down right scary have some justification.

0% TRUE IF IT SEEMS ARTIFICAL THEN IT IS .

Personally, I think if the gas oil index were to be broken we'd see a plummet in the amounts supplers can and would be charged for wholesale energy and then the prices they pass on to consumers. If this takes government intervention i'm all for it. Vertical Integration isn't really that much of a problem with the way each "side" of a company has to operate. If the meter operator or distributior is for example scottish power - they have to treat and charge scottish power the supplier excactly the same as they would any other supplier in the market. That includes the infomation that is passed from one supplier to another, the charges the apply and support they provide.

So I wouldn't say i've "fallen for the propaganda" just accepting the satus of the market as it is presently and how it affects everyone involved.

Your company is accepting but not proposing or willing to do anything about it aslong as its the customer that ends up paying.

Malbrega,

I think you will find most readers are pretty discerning about the quality of responses/posts. Mr.Army does have some 'alternative' views. .PRETTY VALID ONES AND IMPARTIAL ..WHEN I SEE GOOD I PRAISE WHEN I SEE BAD I DONT.

Naturally as an insider you will see much of the good in working for an energy company. I have read most of your helpful advice with support....YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A INSIDER TO SEE THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY.

However,I disagree with your analysis of meeting overheads,line losses, theft are pushing up prices. These are relatively fixed amounts which energy providers have managed year after year without above inflation price increases.

Agree with backfoot,complete twaddle which is made out to be more serious than it is.

The question now is whether, the link between oil prices and wholesale costs of gas and electricity compared with the price charged to the customer is as transparent as the big six would have us believe.Clearly you are taken in by the propoganda but it will be shown 'eventually' that the constant double digit hikes far outweigh the true costs of production.

Not often i say this but SPOT ON BACKFOOT

Various government bodies will wake up to this finally because it is a vote winner and sort out the scandal sufferred for so long.The consolidation of the industry and the vertical integration which supports this non competive market is about to be rumbled SOONER RATHER THAN WHEN ITS TOO LATE.

There's a good number of reason's why I won't reveal which supplier I work for, the biggest of which RED ARMY seems to prove with everyone of his recent posts. If i were to reveal who I worked for, and then offered advice in favour of that supplier I am sure i would be bomabrded with comments such as "you would say that".

2 WORDS FOR THIS ONE ...KOP OUT

Believe it or not I'm here like looneytooner offering advice as impartially as possible, using the infomtion, skills and knowledge I have from the industry. I just hope for every RED ARMY there's another person who inds the infomation we provide helpful.....

-----Maybe maybe not,shame you display such bias or i would normally feel sorry for the joe bloggs who has no control over the company he works for.

Energy price increases are a fact of the industry, beleive it or not the energy suppliers in general (there are some exceptions to this rule due to how and when energy is bought and sold) have been absorbing the cost of the wholesale increases for some time, if memory serves i think the energy increase has been something like 96% since the start of the year but i could well be wrong on this point.--------------

---same old crap and twaddle we have been fed time and time again,why isnt the cost spread evenly amongst the many customers the likes of edf and e.on have in europe.

In addition you have to look at what the energy suppliers are having to spend money on. Aside from the obvious things like overheads, wholesale energy etc, they also have a commitment to reduce carbon emissions, as well as fund renewable energy sources, and very soon they'll be having to provide "social tariffs". All of which costs time and money - where do you think this money comes from?----------------------------

Same bias same twaddle,for a start social tariffs are meant to exist already except the current ones are overpriced ,under subscribed and most dont even know there are cheaper tariffs with their existing supplier saving the need to shop around,the only valid point you say is cost of meeting environmental targets and finding alternatvies for renewable energy some which already exist which i agree with to point but if the costs are controlled elsewhere the cost impact can be reduced.

How can e.on jusify the highly prices sponsorship of the fa,cup yet continously drag their heels over helping the low income familys who simply cant afford the over inflated rates they are charged.

Something else to consider, Some of the increase is due to people not paying their bills, bypasssing the meter etc, as well as well as allowing their bills to be continually be estimated. All these things contribute to supplier's increasing their prices - if these were eliminated outright prices wouldn't be quite as high as they are now.

Id bet my life that was aimed at me,but you are right if customers are blatant in not paying their bill and basically commiting theft,my case was different and you know it ,e.on couldnt apologise enuf when they realised.

BUT getting back to the points raised in the original post by Community. It is well worth weighing up a suppliers online propositions agianst their capped/fixed/protection prices and working out whihc is better for you... take advantage of it. Yes it may only be a temporary reprieve but something is better than nothing....ISNT A LASTING SOLUTION EVEN BETTER THAN RESTBITE

Economising and becoming more enegy efficinet wher epossible is something we all should consider looking to as well. If it takes a year or more to recoup the cost of a measure you have implemented so what? if your not planning on moving any time soon.. does it matter if your investment takes a while to produce results o long as the results are there and the time taken in waiting isn't detrimental...

esl's take well more than 1 year maybe more like 5 to recoup cost as the saving is so little so the energy used must be that much different considering the ever increasing cost overall its not worth the bother,solar panels take even longer .

Amusing as this thread is becoming to the outsider, I would just like to say to Red Army that I agree that there are many with genuine grievances who probably don't complain, but there are many (and I mean LOADS) who complain when they don't have genuine grievances.

Again there is a thread from me on this subject. It involved one story about a woman who moved out and complained (nay screamed at me) that we had sent her a final bill. Not inaccurate by the way- just a final bill. Some of the complaints we do get are NOT valid. THAT ONE WAS A WOMAN AVOIDING DEBT.

id say 80% are valid looney then 70% of them are swept under the carpet untill the regulators find out.

Quite a lot fo complaints in industrys such as banking ,utilities are not even recorded as some are resolved there and then.

So the level of service complaints i reckon is at least double than the recorded figure.

Yes I am glad you are back even under a new name. Were you banned,forgot the password, or held in a straightjacket ?

Again nice to see your idiot persona is alive and truly dangerous if it had a brain to go with it,if you EVER bother to read t+Cs it clearly states to change e-mail addy means you have to change i.d ,seen as ive had 2 e mail accounts for last 4 years or so ,i suddenly decided to switch all mail to single mail account with hotmail as it has better spam filters ,pop up blockers and spam blockers.

Really!! This I have to see. Exactly what did the posters say wrong -

ITS NOT WHAT THEY SAY,its the way they say it,posters should really be impartial and not biased for or against,looney,skywalker and malbrega at least 2 of them work for the very companies we complain about. so will never agree as long as they live .......?

I don't like any of the suppliers,they all are incompetent and overchill you take up a super complaint on my behalf? Dont have time for idiots although i dare say your complaint is spot on

ive stated previously i dont get involved with savings and therefore dont know anything about what they offer.

Cockups or not backfoot i dont care as its not my area so cant comment.

Malbrega:

Well if you call a £40million loss (commerical and consumer) relatively fixed then i'd agree but that's an awful lot of money that could have gone to good use....

I've no doubt the link between gas and oil is artificial or at least unfavourable, but while it is linked in such a way there is a huge cost to the supplier. Energywatch and Ofgem have been examining the link between gas and oil, and the increases to consumer prices. While they all agree the gas/oil indexing seems artificial and should be re-examined - they've begrudingly agreed that while it is in place he increases while steep, and down right scary have some justification.

Personally, I think if the gas oil index were to be broken we'd see a plummet in the amounts supplers can and would be charged for wholesale energy and then the prices they pass on to consumers. If this takes government intervention i'm all for it. Vertical Integration isn't really that much of a problem with the way each "side" of a company has to operate. If the meter operator or distributior is for example scottish power - they have to treat and charge scottish power the supplier excactly the same as they would any other supplier in the market. That includes the infomation that is passed from one supplier to another, the charges the apply and support they provide.

So I wouldn't say i've "fallen for the propaganda" just accepting the satus of the market as it is presently and how it affects everyone involved.

I think you are confusing yourself with partial understanding.The vertical integration I am talking about is in generation and subsequently supply.This itself was referred to strongly as anti competitive in the Select Committee's report.It is pretty common sense to see the dangers of controlling both demand and supply.also the barriers to entry created by the big six to new suppliers is a terrible practice.Meter Operators are a totally different aspect of the market operation and aren't the source of the high price problem.

Not sure what the £40 million loss (theft?) is but it minutely small given the size of the market and fairly static year on year.Yes we would all like it to reduce but it doesn't equate to a leap of 22% year on year.

You have correctly identified the problems with the false linking of oil price at any point in time and the price hikes of the energy companies.

Well if you call a £40million loss (commerical and consumer) relatively fixed then i'd agree but that's an awful lot of money that could have gone to good use....

I've no doubt the link between gas and oil is artificial or at least unfavourable, but while it is linked in such a way there is a huge cost to the supplier. Energywatch and Ofgem have been examining the link between gas and oil, and the increases to consumer prices. While they all agree the gas/oil indexing seems artificial and should be re-examined - they've begrudingly agreed that while it is in place he increases while steep, and down right scary have some justification.

Personally, I think if the gas oil index were to be broken we'd see a plummet in the amounts supplers can and would be charged for wholesale energy and then the prices they pass on to consumers. If this takes government intervention i'm all for it. Vertical Integration isn't really that much of a problem with the way each "side" of a company has to operate. If the meter operator or distributior is for example scottish power - they have to treat and charge scottish power the supplier excactly the same as they would any other supplier in the market. That includes the infomation that is passed from one supplier to another, the charges the apply and support they provide.

So I wouldn't say i've "fallen for the propaganda" just accepting the satus of the market as it is presently and how it affects everyone involved.

Malbrega,

I think you will find most readers are pretty discerning about the quality of responses/posts. Mr.Army does have some 'alternative' views.

Naturally as an insider you will see much of the good in working for an energy company. I have read most of your helpful advice with support.

However,I disagree with your analysis of meeting overheads,line losses, theft are pushing up prices. These are relatively fixed amounts which energy providers have managed year after year without above inflation price increases.

The question now is whether, the link between oil prices and wholesale costs of gas and electricity compared with the price charged to the customer is as transparent as the big six would have us believe.Clearly you are taken in by the propoganda but it will be shown 'eventually' that the constant double digit hikes far outweigh the true costs of production.

Various government bodies will wake up to this finally because it is a vote winner and sort out the scandal sufferred for so long.The consolidation of the industry and the vertical integration which supports this non competive market is about to be rumbled.

There's a good number of reason's why I won't reveal which supplier I work for, the biggest of which RED ARMY seems to prove with everyone of his recent posts. If i were to reveal who I worked for, and then offered advice in favour of that supplier I am sure i would be bomabrded with comments such as "you would say that".

Believe it or not I'm here like looneytooner offering advice as impartially as possible, using the infomtion, skills and knowledge I have from the industry. I just hope for every RED ARMY there's another person who inds the infomation we provide helpful.

Energy price increases are a fact of the industry, beleive it or not the energy suppliers in general (there are some exceptions to this rule due to how and when energy is bought and sold) have been absorbing the cost of the wholesale increases for some time, if memory serves i think the energy increase has been something like 96% since the start of the year but i could well be wrong on this point.

In addition you have to look at what the energy suppliers are having to spend money on. Aside from the obvious things like overheads, wholesale energy etc, they also have a commitment to reduce carbon emissions, as well as fund renewable energy sources, and very soon they'll be having to provide "social tariffs". All of which costs time and money - where do you think this money comes from?

Something else to consider, Some of the increase is due to people not paying their bills, bypasssing the meter etc, as well as well as allowing their bills to be continually be estimated. All these things contribute to supplier's increasing their prices - if these were eliminated outright prices wouldn't be quite as high as they are now.

BUT getting back to the points raised in the original post by Community. It is well worth weighing up a suppliers online propositions agianst their capped/fixed/protection prices and working out whihc is better for you... take advantage of it. Yes it may only be a temporary reprieve but something is better than nothing.

Economising and becoming more enegy efficinet wher epossible is something we all should consider looking to as well. If it takes a year or more to recoup the cost of a measure you have implemented so what? if your not planning on moving any time soon.. does it matter if your investment takes a while to produce results o long as the results are there and the time taken in waiting isn't detrimental...

Amusing as this thread is becoming to the outsider, I would just like to say to Red Army that I agree that there are many with genuine grievances who probably don't complain, but there are many (and I mean LOADS) who complain when they don't have genuine grievances.

Again there is a thread from me on this subject. It involved one story about a woman who moved out and complained (nay screamed at me) that we had sent her a final bill. Not inaccurate by the way- just a final bill. Some of the complaints we do get are NOT valid.