The RANT thread (often contains fruity language)

[Mr Larrington]

I am.  It’s a very slow and tedious process thobut, involving much faffage with FTP.  Seven files downloaded, three converted to .mp4 format, 20-something to go.

[cygnet]

British Gas billing department.
Having received your proposal to reduce my DD a couple of months ago, I'm glad I challenged it, despite the usual call hold shenanigans wasting my time as what you proposed would have run me deeper into debt.
I've finally managed to decipher (from my side) the fuck-ups in billing that you have made during the past year. Its a real shame you couldn't.

Roll on other energy co's actively seeking new customers. I don't care if it's the same price under a cap. I want competent billing.

ARRGH YOU INCOMPETENT COCKWEASLES

[Mrs Pingu]

Octopus are the answer.

[citoyen]

Octopus are the answer.

We recently got moved to Octopus from Shell, who decided they no longer wanted us. We got moved to Shell when whoever it was we were with before (I forget) went kaput.

The myth of the free market. The illusion of choice.

[Jaded]

Octopus are the answer.

Except when they install a smart (gas) meter that won't talk to anyone or anything.

[felstedrider]

Octopus are the answer.

We recently got moved to Octopus from Shell, who decided they no longer wanted us. We got moved to Shell when whoever it was we were with before (I forget) went kaput.

The myth of the free market. The illusion of choice.

Shell sold their domestic supply business to Octopus but I suspect you know that.

There was a tonne of choice but shoddy market regulation, a few cowboys running short positions and a market with moves never seen before did for that.

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

[citoyen]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

[Beardy]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

[citoyen]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

Indeed, indeed.

Not just utilities though - any public service, eg transport, health etc.

[Mrs Pingu]

Speaking of which, buses.
Waited for a bus which didn't come this morning. It's no wonder the general populace drive everywhere.

[citoyen]

Speaking of which, buses.
Waited for a bus which didn't come this morning. It's no wonder the general populace drive everywhere.

I've been making a point of using the local buses a lot more since the £2 fare cap was introduced. The service seems to be generally quite reliable these days (though still not frequent enough) but there are still occasions when the expected bus simply never materialises.

[felstedrider]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

It's odd because I distinctly remember energy bills being the lowest they had ever been when competition was introduced.   Service was shit of course, but you can't have it both ways.

[L CC]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

It's odd because I distinctly remember energy bills being the lowest they had ever been when competition was introduced.   Service was shit of course, but you can't have it both ways.

After competition was introduced when they were all trying to woo us with cheap introductory offers?

"Creating cost savings through efficiencies" is a lie when you have to create a profit.

[felstedrider]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

It's odd because I distinctly remember energy bills being the lowest they had ever been when competition was introduced.   Service was shit of course, but you can't have it both ways.

After competition was introduced when they were all trying to woo us with cheap introductory offers?

"Creating cost savings through efficiencies" is a lie when you have to create a profit.

There was a game, that is still employed in insurance/telecoms/mortgages.   Price a one year fixed at zero margin and then make money when the customer drops onto a standard variable rate at the end of the contract (this reminds me I really need to call Sky).   The clever consumer made sure they never paid SVR by either restarting on a new fixed rate or moving to another supplier.

The game disappeared with the introduction of the price cap.   

Again, I come back to the point that energy suppliers don't make money.   30 suppliers went bust Winter 22.   SSE and npower walked away from their domestic supply businesses as they didn't want to do it any more.   The regulated gross margin in the price cap calc is 2.5%.   Why would you bother ?

[Beardy]

Ofgem's response is to tighten regulation still further so we'll be left with a handful of pretty poor large suppliers all offering pretty much the same product.

Opening up the market is never really for the consumer's benefit.

You can not ‘open up’ a utility market for consumer benefits. They are natural monopolies and any competition within them will be artificial and inefficient as well as costly to implement and monitor.

It's odd because I distinctly remember energy bills being the lowest they had ever been when competition was introduced.   Service was shit of course, but you can't have it both ways.

A situation that proved to be unsustainable* as many of the firms went bust. And that’s before to factor in the lack of strategic planning and a severe reduction in energy security.

*It reminds me of an interaction I had with a salesdroid during the feeding frenzy in picking up the customers after WorldCom went bang. I had prepared the bid which he considered to high because that made it a hard sell. ‘WorldCom could have priced it cheaper’ retorts he, ‘Evidently not’ replies I. Chuckling from his boss (who was also on the call).

[citoyen]

Again, I come back to the point that energy suppliers don't make money.   30 suppliers went bust Winter 22.

Just shows what a terrible idea it was to open up energy supply to the free market.

Either it's a shit deal for the consumer or it's a shit deal for the company. It can't ever be a good deal for both (at least, not in a way that's sustainable) because of the conflicting interests.

[felstedrider]

I’m never quite sure where the energy market debate is going.

I see the argument that energy companies have made billions and paid out dividends to shareholders but then arguments that suppliers were selling at a loss so they’ve gone bust.  I mean they can’t both be right can they ?

I’ve stood outside energy supply companies as the receivers have walked in and I’ve worked on deals where the founders have managed a successful exit (rare).  All with different reasons, though.  Broad sweeping generalisations are a waste of time.

[Mr Larrington]

Hopefully my video recording woes are a Thing of the Past as, thanks to another forumite, I am now the pwner of a Humax FVP-2000T even before I've finished downloading, converting and de-shitvertising the recordings off the old one.  Natch having both the old an new ones plumbed in at the same time means both respond to the remote so I have to actually get up and switch the one I want on manually chiz.

[Wombat]

Speaking of which, buses.
Waited for a bus which didn't come this morning. It's no wonder the general populace drive everywhere.

What are these "buses" of which you speak?  I have actually seen some within 5 miles or so of our home, but despite having an old gits buss pass, there are no buses, for all practical purposes.

The only one within less than 5 miles (and that 5 mile point has absolutely no car parking, as its a corner on an "A" trunk road) is a bus that goes from the village I allegedly live in, 2 miles away down a very steep and winding narrow lane with no footpaths, and the traffic is mostly massive tractors, to Oswestry.  Twice a week.  Its like a half day trip, you get 4 hours in Oswestry, and if you miss the bus back, you're stuck there for either 2 or 5 days depending on whether its Wednesday or Friday.

School buses, well that's a different story.  Why the two school minibuses that go past our house can't act as public buses during the rest of the day, I don't know.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I’m never quite sure where the energy market debate is going.

I see the argument that energy companies have made billions and paid out dividends to shareholders but then arguments that suppliers were selling at a loss so they’ve gone bust.  I mean they can’t both be right can they ?

I’ve stood outside energy supply companies as the receivers have walked in and I’ve worked on deals where the founders have managed a successful exit (rare).  All with different reasons, though.  Broad sweeping generalisations are a waste of time.

It is perfectly possible for companies to be operating at a loss and payout large dividends and bonuses to the board.

[felstedrider]

I’m never quite sure where the energy market debate is going.

I see the argument that energy companies have made billions and paid out dividends to shareholders but then arguments that suppliers were selling at a loss so they’ve gone bust.  I mean they can’t both be right can they ?

I’ve stood outside energy supply companies as the receivers have walked in and I’ve worked on deals where the founders have managed a successful exit (rare).  All with different reasons, though.  Broad sweeping generalisations are a waste of time.

It is perfectly possible for companies to be operating at a loss and payout large dividends and bonuses to the board.

Only if they have cash reserves.  Otherwise it's fraud.

*EDIT* Dividends can only be paid from profits although they could be from retained but realised profits.   ICAEW guidance :-

https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/company-law/paying-dividends-the-essentials

[MattH]

Natch having both the old an new ones plumbed in at the same time means both respond to the remote so I have to actually get up and switch the one I want on manually chiz.

There is an incantation on Humax boxes to change the remote codes so you can run two boxes in the same room. I've done it years ago (satellite and youview boxes), a web search should bring up something relevant, here's an older post about it that may or may not work on yours, but at least gives you a clue as to the search incantation if it has changed:-

https://hummy.tv/forum/threads/using-more-than-1-humax-box-in-the-same-room.23/

[spesh]

There is an incantation ...

Something on a theme of "Work, you ____ing useless piece of ____ing s___e"? 

[mrcharly-YHT]

I’m never quite sure where the energy market debate is going.

I see the argument that energy companies have made billions and paid out dividends to shareholders but then arguments that suppliers were selling at a loss so they’ve gone bust.  I mean they can’t both be right can they ?

I’ve stood outside energy supply companies as the receivers have walked in and I’ve worked on deals where the founders have managed a successful exit (rare).  All with different reasons, though.  Broad sweeping generalisations are a waste of time.

It is perfectly possible for companies to be operating at a loss and payout large dividends and bonuses to the board.

Only if they have cash reserves.  Otherwise it's fraud.

*EDIT* Dividends can only be paid from profits although they could be from retained but realised profits.   ICAEW guidance :-

https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/company-law/paying-dividends-the-essentials

The owners of Wilkinsons managed to siphon off millions while the company was insolvent. I'm not claiming it is legal, but it happens.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12400033/Wilko-paid-77m-owners-collapse.html

These included a £3 million dividend last year, which was paid despite Wilko racking up losses of £39 million.

[felstedrider]

I’m never quite sure where the energy market debate is going.

I see the argument that energy companies have made billions and paid out dividends to shareholders but then arguments that suppliers were selling at a loss so they’ve gone bust.  I mean they can’t both be right can they ?

I’ve stood outside energy supply companies as the receivers have walked in and I’ve worked on deals where the founders have managed a successful exit (rare).  All with different reasons, though.  Broad sweeping generalisations are a waste of time.

It is perfectly possible for companies to be operating at a loss and payout large dividends and bonuses to the board.

Only if they have cash reserves.  Otherwise it's fraud.

*EDIT* Dividends can only be paid from profits although they could be from retained but realised profits.   ICAEW guidance :-

https://www.icaew.com/technical/trust-and-ethics/company-law/paying-dividends-the-essentials

The owners of Wilkinsons managed to siphon off millions while the company was insolvent. I'm not claiming it is legal, but it happens.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12400033/Wilko-paid-77m-owners-collapse.html

These included a £3 million dividend last year, which was paid despite Wilko racking up losses of £39 million.

Yes, I get you, but the discussion was about energy suppliers.   Can you provide a similar example there ?

I've been trying to provide some background to energy supply competition and the challenges have been from Beardy referencing an example from the telecoms sector and yourself referencing an example from high street retail.

One of my old clients collapsed in the big move eighteen months ago.   The three founders had invested their own capital, provided loans to meet cashflow and not paid themselves salaries for three years.   I felt genuinely sorry for them when they failed, the reasons for which were outside of their control.