Sunday, September 5, 2010

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), the regulator of the electricity and gas markets in Great Britain, has launched an investigation into four of the largest British energy suppliers over suspicions that they not be complying with face-to-face and telephone sales regulations. The four organisations facing scrutiny could be fined up to 10% of their annual turnover if it is found that they are breaking sales regulations. Scottish Power, npower, Scottish and Southern Energy and EDF Energy are all to face questioning by the organisation.

Ofgem has urged customers of the four companies to alert the energy regulator, “if they are concerned about the sales approach any domestic suppliers have taken when selling energy contracts, either face-to-face or by telephone,” according to a statement. “As part of the investigation process Ofgem will examine any evidence of non-compliance and consider whether there are grounds for exercising enforcement powers.”

New regulations on sales tactics by energy suppliers were recently introduced, and, Ofgem has said, energy suppliers must be “proactive in preventing misselling to customers both face to face and over the phone. Also, if suppliers are selling contracts face to face they must provide customers with an estimate before any sales are concluded. In most circumstances customers should also receive a comparison of the supplier’s offer with their current deal.” Only one in five consumers consider energy suppliers to be trustworthy, and 61% of people feel intimidated by doorstep sales people from energy companies. According to the organisation Consumer Focus, “complaints have declined since new rules came into effect this year, but suppliers still seem to be flouting the rules. Some customers are still being given misleading quotes and information, which leave them worse off when they switch provider.”

The newspaper The Guardian has reported that “householders are reporting that sales agents working for the energy suppliers are giving them misleading information and quotes which leave them worse off when they switch supplier.” Consumer Focus has said that if energy companies continue to break the rules, they could be banned from doorstep-selling completely. The report goes on to say that “new figures from helpline Consumer Direct show that while the number of complaints has fallen since last year, about 200 cases of mis-selling are being reported each month.” However, Scottish Power said it insists on “the highest standards possible for all of our sales agents”, and npower told the Financial Times that it was “confident that the processes we have in place mean that we comply with our regulatory obligations”. EDF added that it was “fully compliant with all obligations regarding sales of energy contracts”.

According to the regulator, the obligations are serious and must be followed by energy supplies, or they will face “tougher sanctions than those available under more general consumer protection law.” Ofgem has published a guide advising consumers what they should do should an energy salesperson contact them in person of by telephone. Improper sales tactics are still common in the industry—in 2008 an Ofgem investigation found that 48% of gas customers and 42% of electricity customers were worse off after switching supplier on the doorstep. Npower was fined £1.8 million in 2008 by the organisation, and Ofgem insists that they are “committed to taking action” over improper sales activities by energy companies. “Suppliers have existing obligations to detect and prevent misselling and new licence conditions were brought in following our probe to further increase protection for customers,” said Andrew Wright, a Senior Partner of the regulator. “We expect all suppliers to comply with these tougher obligations but if our investigations find otherwise we will take strong action.”

Head of energy at Consumer Focus, Audrey Gallacher, called the investigation “a welcome step … to address years of customers getting a bad deal on energy prices on their doorstep. While many doorstep sales people will do a good job, the pay and rewards system continues to encourage mis-selling, despite years of regulation and voluntary initiatives. If better advice for customers and enforcement of the tougher rules doesn’t end the flagrant abuse of this form of selling the big question will be whether it should be completely banned.” Christine McGourty, director of Energy UK, which represents the leading gas and electricity companies, said that “the companies involved will collaborate with the Ofgem investigation and are awaiting further details from the regulator. Any sales agent in breach of the code will be struck off the approved energy sales register.” Which? chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith, has said he considers the situation “shocking”, saying that the investigation “will do nothing to improve consumer trust in energy suppliers. We’re pleased that Ofgem has promised tough measures against any firms guilty of mis-selling. We hope it uses this opportunity to tighten rules around telesales so they are in line with those for face to face sales.”

SNP Westminster Energy spokesperson Mike Weir MP, however, said that the investigation “does nothing to tackle the real problem of fuel prices which leave many Scots facing great difficulty in heating their homes … Rather than tinkering around the edges Ofgem should be looking at how to reduce prices for vulnerable households.” Gareth Kloet, Head of Utilities at Confused.com, one of the UK’s biggest and most popular price comparison services, also welcomed the inquiry. “It is unacceptable for energy companies to mislead customers like this,” he said, adding that Confused.com has previously “urged energy providers to either stop the practice of doorstep selling or make it very clear to households that better deals are available online. There is no reason why door-to-door salesmen can’t show people online deals and even help households switch to them.”

“Our research reveals customers could end up paying £167 more than they need to as door-to-door salesmen are unable to offer the discounts that are applied online. The changes that have been made to date are a welcome addition to safeguard customers; however this review has been much needed for a long time. Hopefully it will mark the end of customers being overcharged and missold,” Kloet continued. “Our message to energy consumers remains the same: they should shop around online to make sure they’re getting the best deal possible and turn these salesmen away.”

Monday, January 31, 2005

New York, USA — Students and professors at New York‘s Hamilton College have raised protests over an invitation to the controversial ethics professor, Ward Churchill, to participate in a panel at the college. The main objection is related to comments by Mr. Churchill, chairman of the ethnic studies from the University of Colorado, who in a paper written after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, compared the victims of the attack to “little Eichmanns“.

Churchill’s paper, entitled “Some People Push Back”, charges that all American citizens are complicit in the “genocide of 500,000 Iraqi children,” which he maintains occurred during the Gulf War as a direct result of military actions and the destruction of infrastructure and the water supply. Due to their inaction and empowerment of the American government, he compares American citizens to “Good Germans.” He also charges that the inhabitants of the targets of attack, namely the Pentagon and World Trade Center, have a dubious claim to the title “Innocent Civilians,” as the Pentagon was a military target and the WTC was home to many who he alleges profited from the Iraqi Genocide.

Administrators defended Professor Churchill’s appearance despite the fact that some considered his views repugnant and disparaging.

According to Hamilton College spokesman Michael DeBraggio: “Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial.”

The University of Colorado’s Interim Chancellor Phil Distefano said in a statement:”I wish to make it clear that Professor Ward Churchill’s views of the events of 9/11 are his own and do not represent the views of University of Colorado faculty, staff, students, administration or Regents. While I may personally find his views offensive, I also must support his right as an American citizen to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

The professor’s opinions divided New York’s Hamilton College, where Churchill is scheduled to speak. Jessica Miraglia, a student at Hamilton, created a poster defending the professor reading “You don’t have to agree with them in order to learn from them.”. Sophomore Matt Coppo, who lost his father in the World Trade Center attacks was angered over the invitation to Churchill. “Knowing that I’m paying for a person to disrespect my father, it doesn’t go over too well in my mind.”

Two congressmen from Colorado asked professor Churchill to apologize for comparing victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis. Professor Churchill has said that he will not back off his statement.

Monday, March 14, 2022

Wikinews received clarification earlier this month from the United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) regarding the government’s response to the cost of living crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The UK anticipated Russian action against Ukraine for several months, and has coordinated a response with NATO and the European Union. Many “swift retributive responses including an unprecedented package of sanctions” promised in January were imposed after the Russian invasion began in February.

They now include “financial, trade, aircraft, shipping and immigration sanctions” to urge Russia “to cease actions which destabilise Ukraine, or undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.” Most recently, it includes a commitment made by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng Tuesday to phase out Russian oil and natural gas in the UK by the end of the year.

The announcement came the same day United States President Joe Biden announced a ban on imports of Russian oil, coal and gas.

However, a UK government spokesperson told Wikinews: “We cannot have a cliff-edge where oil and gas are abandoned overnight. Turning off the taps would put energy security, British jobs and industries at risk and we would be even more dependent on foreign imports.”

The European Commission was more cautious, planning to cut Union dependence on Russian imports by two-thirds this year, before ceasing altogether “well before 2030”. But whereas Russia supplies 40% of the EU’s natural gas, much of the UK’s energy is produced domestically.

The spokesperson contrasted the British situation with that of the EU: “Our single largest source of gas is from the UK Continental Shelf and the vast majority of imports come from reliable suppliers such as Norway.

“There are no gas pipelines directly linking the UK with Russia. Imports from Russia made up less than 4% of total UK gas supply in 2021.

“Ministers and officials continue to engage constructively and regularly with energy intensive industries and our priority is to ensure costs are managed and supplies of energy are maintained.”

A government FAQ published February 25 adds the UK has three liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, while Germany has none. The fact sheet urged “European countries on the continent reduce their reliance on Russian gas both through alternative supplies, including the global [LNG] market”.

A press release from Tuesday specifically named Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, and called the invasion “illegal”. The spokesperson said: “We continue to monitor the impacts that Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is having on the cost of living in the UK, so we keep our approach under review.”

The release asserted Russian oil “is already being ostracised by the market”. And in any case: “In a competitive global market for oil and petroleum products, demand can be met by alternative suppliers. We will work closely with international partners to ensure alternative supplies of fuel products.”

But high inflation, already associated with the rising cost of petrol, has seen prices rise in all key areas. Before the Russian invasion, the Bank of England forecast inflation to rise to about 7% in spring, from 5.4% last year. And economists cited by The Guardian reportedly project inflation to rise to almost 8% next month.

Consultancy firm The Centre for Economics and Business Research more than halved its growth expectations for 2022 from 4.2% to 1.9% Tuesday. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said the £9 billion package by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak “would now offset only about one fifth of the rise in household energy bills.”

The government spokesperson said: “We recognise the concerns people have about the cost of living, which is why we have set out a generous package of support worth around £21bn including a £150 council tax rebate from April and a further £200 energy bill discount in October – cutting energy bills quickly for the majority of households.”

They added: “We are already providing support to families worth around £20 [billion] this financial year and next, including cutting the Universal Credit taper to make sure work pays, freezing alcohol and fuel duties to keep costs down, and providing £9.1bn to support 27 million households with their energy bills.”

As hinted, all measures were introduced prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began on February 24.

On February 3, it was announced those in England in Council Tax bands A-D would get £150 off their council tax payments. It was also announced there would be a £200 discount on all Britons’ energy bills in autumn. The £200 would be repaid automatically over the next five years, which Leader of the Opposition Sir Keir Starmer likened to a loan.

During Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) Wednesday, he derided Sunak for proposing “a forced £200 loan for every household paid back in mandatory instalments”.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson defended the government for their £20 billion support package, calling the measures “unprecedented”. He added he plans to set “out an energy independence plan for this country in the course of the next few days to ensure that we undo some of the damage of previous decisions taken”.

Sunak announced changes to Universal Credit and the continued freeze of fuel levies during his autumn budget statement on October 27. The amount withheld workers making above the worker allowance threshold per pound was reduced from 63 pence to 55 pence. It follows the UK government’s cancellation of a Covid-19 uplift of £20 per week to Universal Credit in early October, which cut the income of six million claimants by £1040 per annum.

The fuel duty was frozen twelve years ago and has not been lifted since. It is estimated to save motorists £1900.

The statement also included a “radical simplification” of alcohol duties, reducing the taxable bands from fifteen to six and suspending a planned hike at a £3 billion loss to HM Treasury. This was encouraged by many organisations, including the British Beer and Pub Association.

Even so, the measures have been criticised as too meagre to address the reality of the situation. Ahead of Sunak’s spring statement slated for March 23, Conservative MPs have pressured the Chancellor to consider new measures. A source reportedly told The Guardian officials in HM Treasury are weighing options; publicly, they state “There’s only so much that can be done, and we’ve never seen oil prices where they are now.”

Analysts warned Britons from February 24 household gas and electricity bills could reach £3000 per year. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets announced it would lift a cap on default energy tariffs by 54% to £1971 from April.

Though oil prices stabilised to below USD120 per barrel Wednesday, Brent Crude briefly reached a 2008 high of $147.50 per barrel and remain substantially higher from before the Russian invasion. To minimise the effect this will have on British consumers, Sir Keir pushed for nuclear power, renewable energy and home insulation at PMQs.

Johnson defended his record on renewables, calling the UK “the Saudi Arabia of wind power”. The UK spokesperson told Wikinews “It’s the right thing to do to move away from dependence on Russian oil and gas across Europe and this means looking at more nuclear and much more use of renewable energy.”

However: “Companies and skilled employees right across the UK’s gas sector are working to maximise production through this winter, helped by several small new wells and fields that have come online in recent months and edged production up.” The example Wikinews raised over the Abigail oil field in the North Sea, which was greenlit for development by an Israeli firm on February 2, was not addressed. At the time, the director of the Oil and Gas Authority told Sky News oil and gas will remain a source of British energy for decades.

The government spokesperson continued: “The issues we are facing are a result of high international gas prices rather than supply, and further UK oil and gas licensing is unlikely to have a major impact in the short term.”

The Labour Party has urged a windfall profits tax to be imposed on excess profits made by major fossil fuel companies, including BP and Shell plc. Both companies reported historic profits for 2021 in February. BP saw profits of $12.8 billion from -$5.7 billion in 2020, and Shell $19.3 billion from $4.85 billion in 2020.

After BP’s announcement, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves tweeted “The chancellor’s energy plans last week left families more worried than ever. It’s time for Labour’s plan for a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers to cut bills.” However, when pressed at PMQs, Johnson urged a “a sober, responsible approach.”. He said: “The net result of [a windfall tax] would be to see the oil companies put their prices up yet higher, and make it more difficult for them to [divest] from dependence on Russian oil and gas.”

The UK government spokesperson told Wikinews: “A windfall tax could deter £14 billion worth of opportunities awaiting investment, which would risk both security of our energy supply, as well as almost 200,000 jobs that rely on the industry.

“Oil and gas companies in the North Sea are already subject to a tax rate on their profits that is more than double those paid by other businesses. To date, the sector has contributed more than £375 billion in production taxes.

“We keep all taxes under review but we do not comment on speculation about tax changes.

“The UK Government places additional taxes on the extraction of oil and gas, with companies engaged in the production of oil and gas on the UK Continental Shelf subject to headline tax rates on their profits that are currently more than double those paid by other businesses. To date, the sector has paid more than £375 billion in production taxes.”

The government is also criticised for its plan to retrofit homes with poor insulation. In March last year, the government’s flagship green homes grant was scrapped, having only installed 5800 energy efficiency measures.

The government spokesperson responded: “We are investing almost £6.6 billion to support the installation of energy efficiency measures in low energy performance homes including older properties with low income home owners and tenants.

“The Heat and Buildings Strategy set out a comprehensive package of measures we are taking to kickstart the transition to low-carbon heat and build the market for heat pumps. This includes investment in a new £450 [million] Boiler Upgrade Scheme, the £950 [million] Home Upgrade Grant and the £60 [million] Heat Pump Ready research programme.”

Sunday, July 5, 2009

The United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office is to launch an investigation into the collapse of car manufacturer MG Rover. The move follows the conclusion of a four-year enquiry started immediately after the firm became insolvent.

The group of four who owned MG Rover — John Towers, Nick Stephenson, Peter Beale and John Edwards — have been accused of asset stripping. The quartet, known as the Phoenix Four, paid a symbolic £10 (approximately €15) for Rover in 2000. At that time the company received an interest-free loan from former owner BMW for £427 million (approximately €700 million) and came with a large amount of unsold stock.

Between then and Rover’s April 2005 bankruptcy, by which time there were unpaid debts of £1 billion (approximately €1.5 billion), the Phoenix Four had removed an estimated £40 million worth of assets including pensions and salaries. An enquiry was launched by ministers that was expected to take a year, but the final report was not delivered to business secretary Lord Mandelson until three weeks ago.

The government used taxpayer’s money to fund a £6 million loan to MG Rover and attempted to negotiate a deal with a Chinese company, but these efforts failed. MG Rover’s collapse caused the loss of an estimated 15,000 jobs, including with various suppliers. A former MG Rover factory does still build a small number of MG sports cars in Longbridge by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, who bought most of the designs.

The Phoenix Four released a statement criticising the criminal investigation. “There has never been any suggestion of improper conduct by the directors and this was confirmed in a report by the administrators PWC six months after they took over the running of the company. Four years on, any suggestion [of] another further investigation is frankly ridiculous and smacks of kicking this issue into the long grass. If the government has been so concerned to get to the heart of the matter why has it flatly refused more than 30 requests under the Freedom of Information Act which would have revealed correspondence and documents the directors believe would have shed some light on the government’s role in the affair?”