Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, "soup" writ:

Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/


Not sure if that isn't the same offer that British Gas have just made to
me.

"By taking advantage of our Fix & Fall November 2013 tariff, which is
exclusive to existing customers, you can fix your prices at our new
Standard rates until 30th November 2013**. On Fix & Fall we guarantee
not only that your prices won't go up, but if our Standard tariff falls,
your prices will too."

Isn't it the "you can fix your prices at our new Standard rates" bit
that catches you?

Seems to me that you will pay the new higher rate but not suffer any
price increases in the next year.
--
P

In article ,
soup writes:
Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

Read the fine print about how much they reduce.
On the British Gas one, it isn't clear to me exactly what they mean
(I can read it two ways).

Also, they lock you with a small exit fee against moving to another
supplier, so if another supplier reduces prices first, your options
to take that up are reduced.

But it doesn't look like a bad deal at a first glance.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article , soup
writes
Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/

It's a multi pronged attack:

1. Many busy or lazy people wont apply or will mean to but forget, they
will pay the higher charge.

2. There will be a lock-in to the deal, you will have to pay a penalty
to move before the end of the deal so they will have customer continuity
which will be worth money to them.

3. Their standard price isn't going to fall so forget that carrot.

If you chose to move you have 20 working days to inform them that you
wish to switch and they must maintain the price until you do switch so
you can initiate a switch in 3 weeks time and continue paying the same
for the extra 4-6 weeks the switch will take to come about.

Have a look at the switching sites and see what other deals are about,
for my area, BG aren't anything special.

Ones to avoid in my view:

First Utility - a bit like the Talk Talk of utility suppliers
NPower (or whatever they morphed into) - Dual fuel & DD discounts come
as year end bonuses so you lose out it you don't stay for just over a
multiple of 12mths.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

What do the price comparison sites say about it?

On Oct 16, 11:49*am, soup wrote:
Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. *i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

* *The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). *What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

*http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/

It's like long term savings rates. They wouldn't offer it if they
thought they stand a good chance of losing out. In other words you're
probably better off on the standard variable tariff.

MBQ

On 17/10/2012 12:01, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:49 am, wrote:
Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/

It's like long term savings rates. They wouldn't offer it if they
thought they stand a good chance of losing out. In other words you're
probably better off on the standard variable tariff.

MBQ

Could it be something to do with this, like get them locked in before
they tell us about the cheaper rates?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20001111

On 16/10/2012 11:49, soup wrote:
Have just received a letter from them "saying" that the rate is going
up (6%) but that I can fix my rate as I am a "existing customer".
This "fix and fall" rate is guaranteed not to co up. i felt that if
the rates fall I will be fixed in to a higher rate, but the letter
states that if the rate goes up the price to me wont but if the rates
fall my price will reduce.

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/



If it's the same offer a BG the gotcha is that you are fixing the price
at the "standard rate" and not a lower rate that you can get with one of
their other accounts (web account, self meter read, dual fuel, direct
debit, paperless billing etc.). The fixed price may be up to 7% higher
than an alternative deal with the same company.

You will only end up paying less if the company raise their prices again
by a double digit percentage figure before winter ends.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 19/10/2012 20:43, ss wrote:

Could it be something to do with this, like get them locked in before
they tell us about the cheaper rates?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20001111



British Gas have already dropped a lot of their historic accounts and
moved existing customers on to their new very limited range of accounts.
None of the new accounts were cheaper than the equivalent old accounts.

Recently on a radio programme, a representative from one of the
switching or consumer sites stated that 75% of UK customers were paying
the highest rate that the utility companies are charging AND in some
cases the difference between the cheapest and most expensive deals was
50%. If this is true those of us that have already found the cheaper
accounts will probably lose out when the Government force the utility
companies to put everyone on the cheapest rate. Prices will have to rise
to maintain profit margins.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 19/10/2012 22:31, alan wrote:
On 16/10/2012 11:49, soup wrote:

The letter sent to me (see link) is an application for this "Fix and
Fall" rate I cannot see why I have to apply to pay less money (or
rather I can't see why anyone would not). What is the 'gotcha' that I
can't see?

http://postimage.org/image/tg01lp2xt/



If it's the same offer a BG the gotcha is that you are fixing the price
at the "standard rate" and not a lower rate that you can get with one of
their other accounts (web account, self meter read, dual fuel, direct
debit, paperless billing etc.). The fixed price may be up to 7% higher
than an alternative deal with the same company.

You will only end up paying less if the company raise their prices again
by a double digit percentage figure before winter ends.


British Gas give some comparisons based on an "average" customer (prices
are Nov 2012)

Their cheapest (dual fuel) deal £99 / month

The equivalent Fix and Fall for November 2013 is £106 /month
The equivalent Fix and Fall for March 2014 is £109 /month

In true price comparison confusion the example probably assumes that you
use the same amount of fuel during the winter as you do during the summer.

If prices do not rise by November next year the additional cost for the
Fix and Fall deal is around £84

If prices rise by, say, another 7% in January those on the Fix and Fall
dual will then be paying exactly the same price as those on the cheapest
deal but will already have paid an extra £21+ for the privilege.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:44:28 +0100, alan wrote:

Recently on a radio programme, a representative from one of the
switching or consumer sites stated that 75% of UK customers were paying
the highest rate that the utility companies are charging AND in some
cases the difference between the cheapest and most expensive deals was
50%.

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP. The hard bit is finding the tariff in the
first place from the suplliers, they normally bury that as deep as they
can. I find it simpler to use a switching site then verify that the
switching site tariff information is up to date (most have links to the
suppliers buried tariff information.

If this is true those of us that have already found the cheaper
accounts will probably lose out when the Government force the utility
companies to put everyone on the cheapest rate. Prices will have to
rise to maintain profit margins.

I fear that you may well be correct. B-(

Forcing the companies to inform their customers of lower priced tariffs
is not the way to do it. It distorts the market but the Government don't
seem to worry about that sort of thing these days, see FIT payments and
windmill subsidies.

IMHO they should be simply making the companies present the tariff
information in a clear and consistent form, across all companies. Perhaps
even ban the "typical use"/"average bill" and the "sub-sub-scriptup
to/sub-sub-script£500 saving" advertising. If they want to use "typical
use"/"average bill" have them state how much energy that represents but
not in 6pt type at the bottom of the ad but in the body of the ad in a
sensible font size.

I suspect the companies will just come up with even more creative ways of
trying to keep people on the higher tariffs, points in a rewards scheme,
shopping vouchers if you don't switch...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20/10/2012 10:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:44:28 +0100, alan wrote:

Recently on a radio programme, a representative from one of the
switching or consumer sites stated that 75% of UK customers were paying
the highest rate that the utility companies are charging AND in some
cases the difference between the cheapest and most expensive deals was
50%.

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP. The hard bit is finding the tariff in the
first place from the suplliers, they normally bury that as deep as they
can. I find it simpler to use a switching site then verify that the
switching site tariff information is up to date (most have links to the
suppliers buried tariff information.

Switching sites can distort the real costs by offering "cashback" when
switching. I have also found that using a switching site with last
year's real energy usage and using a supplier site with the same
information gives different results - the switching sites giving a
cheaper price.

What I've also seen is people recommending the company they are with
because they have "done the research". Unfortunately if you use a
certain amount of energy per year "company A" may have the best deal but
if you use 25% less energy or 25% more energy "company B" or "company C"
may be cheaper.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 20 Oct 2012 10:05:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2012-10-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP.

You do realise that 50% of the population has an IQ of less than 100?

Not in today's thrusting, dynamic, modern world, they won't. If,
thanks to sharing, caring, al-in-it-together Dave, everyone can now
expect lower than average fuel bills and darling Michael Gove is
making all schools better than average, why should anybody put up with
having lower than average intelligence?

Nick

Nick Odell wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012 10:05:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2012-10-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP.
You do realise that 50% of the population has an IQ of less than 100?

Not in today's thrusting, dynamic, modern world, they won't. If,
thanks to sharing, caring, al-in-it-together Dave, everyone can now
expect lower than average fuel bills and darling Michael Gove is
making all schools better than average, why should anybody put up with
having lower than average intelligence?

Nick
Actually in fact the majority of people are below average intelligence
with the few absolute geniuses (such as myself) being compensated for
by many stupider than average people, but only slightly stupider.

The mean is only the median in 'normal' distributions, and, let's face
it, in populations containing harry's and drivels, its anything but normal.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 20/10/12 10:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:

I suspect the companies will just come up with even more creative ways of
trying to keep people on the higher tariffs, points in a rewards scheme,
shopping vouchers if you don't switch...

Yes, somehow it seems all these companies find it easier to employ
marketing people than engineers etc.

So, as with banks and interest rates, and phone charges, so with power
supplies: they just keep changing the rules to create a constant churn,
all the while hoping they can outpace most people who don't want to
spend all their time reviewing prices.


--
djc

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nick Odell wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012 10:05:35 GMT, Huge wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP. You do realise that 50% of the
population has an IQ of less than 100?
Not in today's thrusting, dynamic, modern world, they won't. If,
thanks to sharing, caring, al-in-it-together Dave, everyone can now
expect lower than average fuel bills and darling Michael Gove is
making all schools better than average, why should anybody put up with
having lower than average intelligence?
Nick
Actually in fact the majority of people are below average intelligence
with the few absolute geniuses (such as myself) being compensated for by
many stupider than average people, but only slightly stupider.

Apparently you misunderstood what the psychiatrist meant when he referred
to you as "special".

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 20/10/2012 14:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nick Odell wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012 10:05:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2012-10-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP.
You do realise that 50% of the population has an IQ of less than 100?

Not in today's thrusting, dynamic, modern world, they won't. If,
thanks to sharing, caring, al-in-it-together Dave, everyone can now
expect lower than average fuel bills and darling Michael Gove is
making all schools better than average, why should anybody put up with
having lower than average intelligence?

Nick
Actually in fact the majority of people are below average intelligence
with the few absolute geniuses (such as myself) being compensated for
by many stupider than average people, but only slightly stupider.

The mean is only the median in 'normal' distributions, and, let's face
it, in populations containing harry's and drivels, its anything but
normal.

As it happens, I looked up the distribution for the UK when this thread
started and it does actually appear to be a "normal" distribution.

SteveW

On 21/10/2012 00:50, SteveW wrote:
On 20/10/2012 14:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nick Odell wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012 10:05:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2012-10-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It does seem a lot of people don't seem able to track down the "best
value" deal for them. The maths isn't difficult and with
computers/spreadsheets a POP.
You do realise that 50% of the population has an IQ of less than 100?

Not in today's thrusting, dynamic, modern world, they won't. If,
thanks to sharing, caring, al-in-it-together Dave, everyone can now
expect lower than average fuel bills and darling Michael Gove is
making all schools better than average, why should anybody put up with
having lower than average intelligence?

Nick
Actually in fact the majority of people are below average intelligence
with the few absolute geniuses (such as myself) being compensated for
by many stupider than average people, but only slightly stupider.

The mean is only the median in 'normal' distributions, and, let's face
it, in populations containing harry's and drivels, its anything but
normal.

As it happens, I looked up the distribution for the UK when this thread
started and it does actually appear to be a "normal" distribution.

SteveW


However there is so much tweaking behind the scenes! There are IQ tests
for low intelligence, high intelligence and middle/broad range
intelligence - and people with afflictions which mean they cannot
complete standard tests. Tests for different eras. And when two tests
don't agree they massage things to something make them align better. It
would be pretty amazing if they had not shoe-horned the data into a
near-perfect Gaussian distribution - almost regardless of reality.

--
Rod

On 21/10/12 08:00, polygonum wrote:
On 21/10/2012 00:50, SteveW wrote:
On 20/10/2012 14:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Actually in fact the majority of people are below average intelligence
with the few absolute geniuses (such as myself) being compensated for
by many stupider than average people, but only slightly stupider.

The mean is only the median in 'normal' distributions, and, let's face
it, in populations containing harry's and drivels, its anything but
normal.

As it happens, I looked up the distribution for the UK when this thread
started and it does actually appear to be a "normal" distribution.

SteveW


However there is so much tweaking behind the scenes! There are IQ tests
for low intelligence, high intelligence and middle/broad range
intelligence - and people with afflictions which mean they cannot
complete standard tests. Tests for different eras. And when two tests
don't agree they massage things to something make them align better. It
would be pretty amazing if they had not shoe-horned the data into a
near-perfect Gaussian distribution - almost regardless of reality.


ie you start with the premise that it 'ought' to be a normal
distribution, then you justify massaging the data so it fits.

--
djc