Duel Fuel Discount — Bulb Community

Duel Fuel Discount

I note that the government cap on standing charges (£177) has prompted you to reduce the standing charge rates.
To compensate for the forced reduction you have decided to remove the direct debit bonus.
There is now no advantage in the direct debit payment method which I would think you prefer.

Guess its time to look at the package again and make some decisions.

Comments

  • dwfarnell said:

    I note that the government cap on standing charges (£177) has prompted you to reduce the standing charge rates.
    To compensate for the forced reduction you have decided to remove the direct debit bonus.
    There is now no advantage in the direct debit payment method which I would think you prefer.

    Guess its time to look at the package again and make some decisions.

    Hope you don't mind me asking where did you get your information, since it appears to be false?

    What happened was that Bulb gave a £30 discount if you had duel fuel with them, this was £15 per fuel per year.

    Bulb has recently removed the the duel fuel allowance and instead replaced it by a £15 a year reduction in the standing charge for each fuel. In other words the removal of the duel fuel was exactly matched by the reduction in the standing charge.

    There was NO direct debit allowance, I think you have confused the terminology with duel fuel allowance.

    Hope this helps?



  • I do apologise for confusing dual fuel discount and direct debit allowance. I did mean dual fuel allowance.

    However from January this year I think there is a government cap on dual fuel customers of £177.00 for standing charges.

    The rates you were charging of 24.56p per day on each fuel means you would exceed this limit and have to reduce these charges.
    By removing the discount for dual fuel and reducing the standing charges you have brought standing charges well under the government limit and eliminated the cost to yourselves of reducing the standing charge rate.
    Therefore any benefit the customer might have enjoyed by this legislation has been eliminated, and you have avoided a true reduction in standing charges.
  • I didn't realise there was a price cap on standing charges thanks for mentioning this. I have just checked the OFGEM site and it shows exactly what you said that from 1 January 2019 duel fuel standing charges will be capped at £177 for duel fuel customers.

    Lets put the changes into perspective with regards to Bulb, I'll do it in £'s.

    Prior to the recent changes the standing charge was £90 per fuel or £180 in total which is £3 over the cap of £177.

    Following the recent change the standing charge is now £75 per fuel or £150 in total which is £27 under the cap.

    So your concerns is really about Bulb saving themselves in theory but not in actual fact £3 per year by removing the duel fuel allowance and compensating for this by reducing the standing charges.

    Whichever way you look at it, no customer was disadvantaged by the changes made by Bulb even if the changes happened to coincide with the price cap announced by Bulb.

    Personally I'm quite pleased to see the duel fuel allowance removed as it reduces the size of the formulae I use in my spreadsheet to work out my own energy costs and direct debit payments.
  • dwfarnell said:

    By removing the discount for dual fuel and reducing the standing charges you have brought standing charges well under the government limit and eliminated the cost to yourselves of reducing the standing charge rate.
    Therefore any benefit the customer might have enjoyed by this legislation has been eliminated, and you have avoided a true reduction in standing charges.

    By reducing the standing charges they have eliminated the cost of reducing the standing charges?

    A reduction in the standing charge has avoided a true reduction in standing charges?

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but would you mind rewording that paragraph into something that I can actually parse and comprehend? What exactly is it that you're complaining about?
  • I am quite surprised that someone working in the energy sector would not be aware of legislation that affects their business. I'm sure Bulb would have had ample notification of the standing charge cap.

    The legislation has been introduced to assist customers in a complicated market.

    Had you left the dual fuel discount in place, you would have had to reduce your standing charges (by law) and give the customer a price reduction.
    I agree that there has been no extra cost to your customers, but there has been no saving either.

    I think it is more than coincidence that the changes you have introduced, and the timing, are more for the benefit of Bulb than your customers.

    If energy suppliers were forced to incorporate standing charges into their unit rates and quote unit rates only, comparison would be simple.
  • dwfarnell said:

    I am quite surprised that someone working in the energy sector would not be aware of legislation that affects their business. I'm sure Bulb would have had ample notification of the standing charge cap.

    You seem to be under the impression that I work for Bulb. I do not. I'm just a customer like yourself.
    dwfarnell said:

    Had you left the dual fuel discount in place, you would have had to reduce your standing charges (by law) and give the customer a price reduction. I agree that there has been no extra cost to your customers, but there has been no saving either.

    Ah, ok, I see where you're going with this. You want the standing charges reduced AND a dual fuel discount.

    I've always considered the dual fuel discount to already simply be a reduction in the standing charges, meaning the standing charges were already below the cap. This change just simplifies the equation and makes comparison easier.

    You're paying lower standing charges than the cap. That's what the cap intended. Complaining about the fact that you haven't received a further discount below the cap is just being unreasonable in my opinion.
  • Hooloovoo said:


    You seem to be under the impression that I work for Bulb. I do not. I'm just a customer like yourself.

    I think the confusion may be because we're both quite active on the forums and your forum avatar is 'BU' by default....

    Bulb staff are identified by a 'Bulb' symbol at the bottom of their photograph (admittedly this could be faked by somebody) and a '[name] at Bulb' username.
  • dwfarnell said:

    I am quite surprised that someone working in the energy sector would not be aware of legislation that affects their business. I'm sure Bulb would have had ample notification of the standing charge cap.

    It was me that said "I didn't realise there was a price cap on standing charges thanks for mentioning this.".

    To which my answer is why should I have known this? I am a customer of Bulb and don't work for any energy supplier and I leave legislation aspects to those who are better qualified? Please bear in mind this is a public forum and not all queries are answered by Bulb personnel.

    I can't see any monetary benefit to Bulb and neither can I see any cost disadvantage to customers. We all come out equal so personally I have no axe to grind with the status quo.

  • Hooloovoo said:


    Complaining about the fact that you haven't received a further discount below the cap is just being unreasonable in my opinion.

    @Hooloovoo I think you're missing what @dwfarnell is saying. It's not necessarily about them wanting a further discount but more about the way in which Bulb chose to bring down its standing charges to comply with the cap.

    If you're happy with Bulb's manipulation (which you obviously are) then you're not going to understand the point.
  • yyt said:


    If you're happy with Bulb's manipulation (which you obviously are) then you're not going to understand the point.

    Yes I'm happy with the removal of the duel fuel allowance which was compensated by a corresponding reduction in standing charges. I don't see why this should be considered as manipulating by Bulb.

    Do you know for a fact that Bulb choose to bring down the standing charge to comply with the cap?

    Bulb only needed to reduce their standing charges by £3 to meet the cap requirement. So in theory they could have done this at nil cost to themselves by reducing their duel fuel allowance by the same amount. Getting rid of the duel fuel allowance just made everything nice and tidy for me as a customer.

    I also took it that @dwfarnell was looking for some actual price reductions from the comments made in responses.
  • yyt said:

    If you're happy with Bulb's manipulation (which you obviously are) then you're not going to understand the point.

    I'm happy with the "manipulation" and I do understand the point.

    As with many things, it all depends on your point of view. My point of view is that the dual fuel discount simply lead to a lower standing charge, and that overall standing charge was already below the cap. So no reduction was required to get below the cap. The change in administration simply makes this clear. There is no manipulation unless you choose to see it as such.

    Discounts that are perpetually available are not discounts. They are just the price.
  • Sorry for any confusion here. Allanr, I did think you were answering my comment on behalf of Bulb. Apology.

    This is the rub, and I can assure you it is manipulation.

    Bulb have been told that they can only charge £177 for a dual fuel standing charge.

    This means they have to reduce the rate by 3 or 4 quid per dual fuel customer to stay legal.
    Reducing the dual fuel tariff by 3 or 4 quid x 1000's of customers is a lot of dosh. Bulb not happy.
    So they take your dual fuel discount and use it to reduce your standing charges. Customer breaks even.

    Standing charges are now below the government cap of £177. Bulb happy.

    By doing it this way Bulb avoid having to take a hit of all the 1000's of 3 or 4 quid's. Customer breaks even, Bulb very happy.

    The risk Bulb are taking is that you may now move one of your services to another supplier as there is no dual fuel incentive, but you will have to take care doing the numbers, and look closely at competitor standing charges.

    The whole idea of the legislation is to give the customer some benefit which Bulb have cleverly avoided.
  • @dwfarnell

    No problem about thinking I was one of the Bulb team.

    I assume you are aware some customers have actually benefited to the tune of £15 per year by the changes Bulb have made in reducing the standing charges? This is genuine reduction as opposed to any sleight of hand by Bulb and will cost Bulb some dosh..
  • Allanr said:


    I assume you are aware some customers have actually benefited to the tune of £15 per year by the changes Bulb have made in reducing the standing charges? This is genuine reduction as opposed to any sleight of hand by Bulb and will cost Bulb some dosh..

    And the reduced standing charge makes Bulb more appealing to electric only customers, so the increased takeup should counterbalance the cost.

    It was a calculated business decision rather than an altruistic one. Nothing wrong with that - it's when you advertise the change as a customer-focused initiative that it becomes less palatable.

  • yyt said:



    And the reduced standing charge makes Bulb more appealing to electric only customers, so the increased takeup should counterbalance the cost.

    It was a calculated business decision rather than an altruistic one. Nothing wrong with that - it's when you advertise the change as a customer-focused initiative that it becomes less palatable.

    It still means existing and new customers on single fuel will have a £15 reduction on standing charges. That has to be good for them whichever way you would like to wrap it up..

    The blog I'm looking at says:

    As part of our mission to make things simpler for our members, we’ve been thinking about our statements. We’ve realised we can make things clearer by lowering our standing charge and doing away with our dual fuel discount.

    You may think it is customer-focused initiative, personally I now find it far easier to check my bills by removal of the duel fuel allowance. My thoughts are exactly in sync with the two sentences above extracted from the Blog.

  • Many years ago, one paid the gas board for gas and the lekky board for electricity. Then the markets were opened up and companies needed a way of breaking the habit of people using two different organisations. Hence the discount.
    Nowadays most people using two fuels would deal with one company for convenience - so no real point in having a duel fuel discount. And every point in reducing standing charges, to attract switching for one OR both fuels.
Sign In or Register to comment.