Manx Gas Standing Charges

[integrity]

Correct.

Total Failure.

An organization set up to protect business not the consumer.

I could be wrong but any evidence to contrary would be welcomed.

[asitis]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=35844&headline=Why are our heating bills up in the summer%3F&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2017

 

More bull !!  

[La Colombe]

Manx Gas are really not getting it. Their only focus is on speaking to people in financial difficulty on the telephone. They clearly think that if you are not in financial difficulty they are entitled to some more of your cash. Not for any valid reason of course, they just seem to think you should give it to them. 

[twinkle]

On ‎09‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 9:29 PM, hissingsid said:

The Office of Fair Trading are not fit for purpose and should be scrapped.

anything that has had quirks paws on it needs shut down pronto,the man's a FUCKING CLOWN,how is he earning his corn these days? or did he make enough whilst in government that he doesn't need to labour anymore.

[John Wright]

The Manx Gas OFT question of regulation of price is different to how you split the same bill between fixed and current consumable costs.

Manx Gas have the cost of the network, installation and repair.if they charge a low fixed cost ( standing charge ) it means that when wholesale gas price goes down they get slated because their charge for gas consumed doesn't go down by a similar percentage.

its really presentational, isn't it?

Standing charges hadn't gone up to reflect the cost of infrastucture investment.

Sure it's been badly handled, by Manx Gas and OFT.

BUT if what we are discussing is how a £1,000 yearly bill is notionally split between a standing charge for fixed costs and the amount for gas actually consumed, and the bill isn't actually increased, but is still £1,000, it's academic.

it begs the question however as to how is a fair way to divide the charge, should there be a standing charge, how do you calculate a standing charge, should it be universal, or should it depend on how far your house is from the road or nearest mains or optical cable etc.

Historically for utilities the favoured version has been universal, so all consumers paid the same.

The current protesters don't seem to address the issue, just that they don't like the change and the current system, but they don't actually suggest what they want in it's place.

[Non-Believer]

18 minutes ago, twinkle said:

anything that has had quirks paws on it needs shut down pronto,the man's a FUCKING CLOWN,how is he earning his corn these days? or did he make enough whilst in government that he doesn't need to labour anymore.

The OFT has (unfortunately) never had any regulatory powers or remit. To include MG, Quirkio's involvement or not. They have only the authority to advise or at best urge operations to comply.

IIRC, operations investigated have no obligation to abide by any OFT findings as long as they are acting within the law. OFT has been told to "get stuffed" before now, on at least one occasion. It's a nicey nicey pamphlet producing department but possesses few teeth. By design?

[WTF]

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

The current protesters don't seem to address the issue, just that they don't like the change and the current system, but they don't actually suggest what they want in it's place.

oil seems to be best thing to have in the place of a gas standing charge.

 

and they are definitely robbing us,  the cost of gas itself reduced or stayed the same  but the cost of bottled gas seems to have doubled in the last 3 years,  the 'infrastructure' for bringing in bottles of gas hasn't gone up that much and the costs of looking after it aren't the gas companies,  robbers !

[asitis]

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The Manx Gas OFT question of regulation of price is different to how you split the same bill between fixed and current consumable costs.

Manx Gas have the cost of the network, installation and repair.if they charge a low fixed cost ( standing charge ) it means that when wholesale gas price goes down they get slated because their charge for gas consumed doesn't go down by a similar percentage.

its really presentational, isn't it?

Standing charges hadn't gone up to reflect the cost of infrastucture investment.

Sure it's been badly handled, by Manx Gas and OFT.

BUT if what we are discussing is how a £1,000 yearly bill is notionally split between a standing charge for fixed costs and the amount for gas actually consumed, and the bill isn't actually increased, but is still £1,000, it's academic.

it begs the question however as to how is a fair way to divide the charge, should there be a standing charge, how do you calculate a standing charge, should it be universal, or should it depend on how far your house is from the road or nearest mains or optical cable etc.

Historically for utilities the favoured version has been universal, so all consumers paid the same.

The current protesters don't seem to address the issue, just that they don't like the change and the current system, but they don't actually suggest what they want in it's place.

I don't have a definitive answer, but clearly it was never going to be equitable that the 'best' customers i.e. highest usage were gouged for the highest bands of standing charge. We should bear in mind that the actual product i.e. gas, is charged at a hugely premium price on the island, whatever the standing charge ! and any small token reduction looks academic in the scale of a very expensive way of heating on the island.

Actually I do have a definite answer ... change to oil !

[Aristotle]

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 The current protesters don't seem to address the issue, just that they don't like the change and the current system, but they don't actually suggest what they want in it's place.

Customers not being ripped off is something I've heard suggested.

[twinkle]

36 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The OFT has (unfortunately) never had any regulatory powers or remit. To include MG, Quirkio's involvement or not. They have only the authority to advise or at best urge operations to comply.

IIRC, operations investigated have no obligation to abide by any OFT findings as long as they are acting within the law. OFT has been told to "get stuffed" before now, on at least one occasion. It's a nicey nicey pamphlet producing department but possesses few teeth. By design?

well surely if this "OFT" has no teeth OR legal mandate to exert pressure on these untouchable companies they should be shut down, HOW MUCH does this toothless wimp of a gov dept cost "waste" per year because I've yet to see a case they have successfully done anything meaningful to alter the outcome in favour of the people.

[asitis]

7 minutes ago, twinkle said:

well surely if this "OFT" has no teeth OR legal mandate to exert pressure on these untouchable companies they should be shut down, HOW MUCH does this toothless wimp of a gov dept cost "waste" per year because I've yet to see a case they have successfully done anything meaningful to alter the outcome in favour of the people.

Dint they spend 100k of our money on a report into the Steam Packet which was shelved because we didn't need to see it !?

 

[twinkle]

Quote

 

i hope? this FOI we now SEEM to have will give these parish buffoons food for thought.

 

WE are now watching YOU LOT.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, twinkle said:

.....HOW MUCH does this toothless wimp of a gov dept cost "waste" per year....

I believe that recent costs were circa £750k pa, could anybody confirm?

To be fair, I approached them over some grief I had with a dealer-supplied used car a few years ago and they provided me with sound advice that I used to resolve the matter. But utility regulation is a different sized matter altogether.

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

Dint they spend 100k of our money on a report into the Steam Packet which was shelved because we didn't need to see it !?

 

Probably politically expedient, more like? Or even embarrassing perhaps. Obviously there was clearly something (or things) that somebody adjudged shouldn't be in the public domain for whatever reasons. Our old friend "Commercially Confidential"?

But could this be the subject of an FOI request now, maybe?

[asitis]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Probably politically expedient, more like? Or even embarrassing perhaps. Obviously there was clearly something (or things) that somebody adjudged shouldn't be in the public domain for whatever reasons. Our old friend "Commercially Confidential"?

But could this be the subject of an FOI request now, maybe?

Now there's a thought, I can't remember what year it was ?