2013-05-26T05:10:07-04:00 Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=richard-lloyd Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Richard Lloyd Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3218352 2013-05-06T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-06T13:16:51-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
If it is, it won't be a moment too soon.

Our research paints a pessimistic picture of consumer sentiment, with the majority expecting the cost of living and their household budget to get even tighter than last year, squeezed by spiralling utility and food costs.

Six in 10 people say they're worried about the value of their pension and a majority don't feel they'll be able to live comfortably in their retirement.

Many others are struggling with the complicated social care system which sees many using up a large proportion of their assets on care costs.

Meanwhile trust in energy suppliers and banks has hit rock bottom; unacceptable practices and poor standards persist in these and other essential services; and at worst, rogue traders ruin the lives of vulnerable consumers.

If done right, there are five bills that could put consumers at the heart of the new Parliamentary agenda and give people hope.

A Consumer Bill of Rights - the first major upgrade to consumer law since 1977 - should make it easier for people to know their rights when things go wrong and for regulators to crackdown on those who breach the law.

The more consumers feel able to challenge bad practice and shoddy service, whether on the high street or online, the harder it will be for bad businesses to rip off their customers.

And that's good for good businesses too.

In financial services, the carried over Banking Reform Bill will determine the future of this industry.

With Libor rate-rigging, the exposure of the true extent of the PPI mis-selling scandal and catastrophic IT failures over the past year, the reputation of this vital part of our economy is in tatters.

An overwhelming majority of people support our call for the Bill to include a fully independent code of conduct for bankers, backed by statute, with tough sanctions for bad practice.

In December we reported how, in another one of our essential markets, trust in energy companies had fallen to an all-time low. Rising energy prices are a top financial worry for UK consumers and are likely to remain so as bills are predicted to rise for years to come.

But people can't find the best deals because of the sheer number and complicated pricing of energy tariffs.

The government must not only deliver on the prime minister's promise to ensure everyone gets put on the best tariff for them, but also use the Energy Bill to start fixing our broken energy market by introducing a single unit price and making it easier for people to switch supplier.

For people needing care, the current system is complex, daunting and difficult to navigate. We welcomed the move by government to provide greater certainty about what people will have to pay towards their care by putting a cap on total costs.

People are crying out for help that delivers greater long-term financial security. That is why it's essential that everyone understands how the new system will operate in practice, and the costs they will still have to pay.

So the Care and Support Bill must also ensure improvements in the quality of information and advice available to people planning care.

Finally, the expected reform of the state pension in a Pensions Bill is important, but also needs to address the bigger challenge facing the millions of people preparing for retirement.

The state of the economy is eroding any hope many people may have of long-term financial security.

It's vital that people get the most out of every penny they save for retirement, so Which? is disappointed that the government has decided to press ahead with the 'pot follows member' approach that could mean small pension pots end up in poor value schemes.

The government must also use the Pensions Bill to set clear quality standards for all workplace pension schemes and protect savers from excessive fees.

With the cost of living now firmly top of the political agenda, there is much to do for a government keen to show it's on the side of hard pressed consumers.

The coming year will not only be crucial for the government but also for consumers struggling with rising prices, uncompetitive markets and a bleak economic outlook.

The strength of this legislation in Wednesday's Queen's Speech will show just how much the government is prepared to give consumers a helping hand.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3130079 2013-04-22T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-23T03:45:37-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
After yet another round of inflation busting price rises by the big energy companies, he promised to intervene and legislate so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers.

Today the energy regulator, Ofgem, closes its consultation on these plans. But our new analysis has shown that unless these proposals are improved, more than 3.4 million households could end up paying over the odds for their energy as they still struggle to identify the cheapest energy tariffs.

Ofgem claims to have a solution with its new 'Tariff Comparison Rate'. But this APR-style metric will only tell customers the representative price for a medium user of both gas and electricity.

Given only a quarter of British households actually use this level of energy, that leaves three quarters of people making price comparisons based on the wrong numbers.

And that could leave millions opting for an unnecessarily expensive energy deal, resulting in people collectively paying an extra £55million on their bills.

For years consumers have had to deal with ridiculously complex and confusing energy prices and tariffs, with nine out of ten people unable to work out the cheapest tariff in our own investigation. Most of us have never switched supplier, while for those that have switched the confusing way energy is priced has led to many choosing the wrong deal.

With escalating energy prices remaining a top financial problem for households we hoped the government and Ofgem would sort this mess out by forcing all energy companies to present their prices in a clear, simple way and to make it much easier to switch.

While it's good they've told companies to reduce the number of tariffs they offer, their plans don't tackle the barriers to switching. As a result it's likely customers will be put on the best of a limited choice of deals with their current supplier, rather than being able to find the best possible deal across the energy market.

That's why Which? wants the government to step in and legislate to require single unit prices for each energy tariff, in the same way that petrol prices are displayed on the garage forecourt, so that people can easily compare between suppliers to find the cheapest possible deal for them.

It should also make a new rule that suppliers must take no more than a week to switch customers, instead of the current slow shambles that often puts potential switchers off.
This could finally inject much-needed competition into the broken energy market, firmly putting the consumer in the driving seat.

But for that to happen we need a regulator that really listens to consumers. Don't hold your breath.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2905869 2013-03-19T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-19T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
We've had more than 1,600 comments about nuisance calls and texts on our website and many of them had the same theme - 'why isn't something being done?' Our research also found that in the last three months, seven in 10 people received unsolicited calls and four in 10 an unwanted text.

The government, various regulators and business leaders have told us that they know this is a problem, and the Information Commissioner has recently fined some companies. But we have waited long enough for a proper crackdown on nuisance calls and texts. That's why we're calling for more action, and action that cuts the problem off at source.

Today we've launched a campaign to call time on nuisance calls and texts. We have called on the four regulators who have the responsibility for helping protect you from unwanted calls and texts (the Information Commissioner's Office, the Ministry of Justice, Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading) to set up a joint taskforce to tackle this nuisance.

We want this taskforce to start by focusing on the personal injury and payment protection insurance claims industries which people tell us they are most likely to receive calls from.

In a separate Which? investigation we found one in four Which? members who made a claim on their car insurance were contacted by a claims management company (CMC) within three months. Nearly half of these were contacted in a week, and many were bombarded by repeated calls and texts - 22% received 10 or more texts and 12% received 10 or more calls.

We think it's time for the regulators to go into the offices of the companies that are making these calls, or benefiting from them. We want this taskforce to get to the bottom of why so many people are getting calls and texts they don't want. We want to know if rules are being broken and if they are, we want to see quick and effective punishment. If the taskforce finds evidence of rule breaking, we want heavy fines and licences suspended.

And we want to see results in 12 weeks time. If the regulators are unwilling or unable to take this action then we will call on the government to step in.

To tell us about your personal experience of nuisance calls and texts, please visit: www.which.co.uk/coldcalling]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2574882 2013-01-30T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-01T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
The OFT's damning verdict on the current account market, which finds the industry still lacks both customer focus and effective competition, is the latest evidence showing how badly people are being let down by the banking industry.

One of the biggest problems is that the government's reforms are failing to address the unhealthy dominance of the biggest banks. The market power of the largest players has increased - and not because they have provided better customer service or value-for-money products, but because of government subsidies and bailouts.

The result is that it's now almost impossible for smaller providers to gain a foothold in the market. Only last week the founder of Metro Bank said he wouldn't set up a new bank in the UK again.

So that leaves consumers to vote with their feet and switch accounts in greater numbers, which would incentivise the banks to genuinely compete for customers. The problem is that switching rates are abysmally low - only an estimated 6% of people switch current accounts each year, and Which? has found that more than half of people have never switched their current account.

Many people are put off by the process of changing their direct debits and standing orders. There will be a new, more automated switching service in place later this year that may go some way to smoothing the process.

But six in 10 people we surveyed said they'd be more likely to switch if they could take their account number with them. So it's disappointing that the industry refuses to seriously contemplate portable account numbers.

While the OFT has said it will ask the banks' own Payments Council to look into the costs of portable account numbers, we would like to see a proper independent assessment of the costs and the benefits.

Consumers might also feel more empowered to shop around for the most competitive bank account if they could see how much each account costs and make easy comparisons between banks.

We think the banks should be required to publish information on how consumers use their account and all fees, charges and interest, and make this easily available online all year round. Consumers should be able to use this downloadable data to make 'one-click' comparisons between current accounts. The OFT's recommendation that this information is included on annual statements doesn't go far enough.

Unless there is quickly a measurable improvement in competition that makes a real difference to consumers, the whole of the retail banking sector should be referred to the Competition Commission without further delay.

But a more competitive market alone will not transform customer service and stop banks offering poor value products. That's why we want to see other fundamental reforms to tackle the culture of banking, with banks that put customers ahead of sales, tough new professional standards, and individual bankers punished for mis-selling and bad practice.

We also want the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, to clamp down on poor bank products, warn consumers when they are investigating a bank product, and remove charges that make it difficult for consumers to compare products.

To date almost 130,000 people have signed the pledge for Big Change in banking with Which? and 38 Degrees. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is asking the right questions. It seems that everyone - consumers, the Government, leading bankers and now the OFT - agrees that big change is what's needed.

Is 2013 the year a big change in banking will finally happen?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1923325 2012-09-28T12:58:40-04:00 2012-11-28T05:12:01-05:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
With more than 2.2 million new Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) complaints being made in the first six months of this year alone, PPI is now the biggest financial scandal of all time.

New complaints data from the Financial Services Authority revealed that PPI claims increased by 129% in the first half of 2012, indicating the full extent of the scandal is yet to unfold.

As complaints continue to soar, we're calling on the banks to ensure they set aside more funding to pay back customers who were mis-sold PPI, as the £10 billion they've already set aside could run out within months. Our analysis suggests that if PPI payouts continue at the same pace as the first six months of the year Lloyds could run out of compensation funds by November 2012, Barclays by December 2012, RBS within the next six months, and HSBC by August next year.

The banks must make it as easy as possible for customers to get back what they are rightly owed without any hassle. We also want to see the banks publish monthly updates so there is full transparency about the amounts they have paid back. And they should claw back bonuses from senior executives who presided over the mis-selling scandal.

But the banking scandal doesn't end with PPI. Libor rate-rigging has been back in the headlines after the Financial Services Authority's Martin Wheatley revealed far-reaching reforms to overhaul the Libor system.

Independent governance, effective regulation and criminal sanctions for those who manipulate Libor are a vital step towards restoring the shattered consumer confidence in banking. That's one of the reasons why we're calling for bankers to be punished for mis-selling and bad practice in our Big Change campaign.

The government must take forward Martin Wheatley's recommendations as soon as possible to help fix our broken banking system.

However, this is just the beginning. Fundamental changes are needed to both the practices and culture of the banking industry to protect the public from further mis-selling and scandals. We want banks to put customers before sales and for bankers to meet professional standards and comply with a code of conduct.

You can support our campaign for a return to banks for customers, not bankers and for consumers' best interests to be at the heart of banking reforms by signing the 'Big Change' pledge.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1894066 2012-09-20T19:00:00-04:00 2012-11-20T05:12:01-05:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
So it's no surprise that new Which? research shows that banking is one of the least trusted professions. Our survey found that two-thirds of people (67%) think bankers are unlikely to lose their job if they lie or cheat and only one in 10 people trust bankers to act in their best interests. A mere 6% of people say they associate ethical behaviour with banking.

Consumers are continually being let down by the banks. When it comes to customer satisfaction, a recent Which? poll found all major high-street banks scored below average, despite dominating the UK banking market. Banks that go the extra mile to keep their customers happy are rated far higher than banks who may offer slightly better products or interest rates. This highlights the demand for all banks to put customers first, before bankers.

Today we launch a major new campaign, 'Big Change', calling for fundamental changes to banking culture and practices to put customers first. We think customer service should come before sales, bankers must meet professional standards and comply with a code of conduct enforced by an independent professional standards body, and they should be punished for mis-selling and bad practice.

Banks should have to genuinely compete for customers. We want to see increased competition on the high street and for customers to vote with their feet when they're not being treated fairly by switching banks. This will force banks to put customers first.

In December, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards will recommend how to fix banking culture. The inquiry presents a unique opportunity to find ways to transform a sector that ordinary people believe has lost its moral compass. We are calling for the Commission, the banks, the regulators and the government to listen to the public and make sure consumers' best interests are at the heart of the reforms that so desperately need to be made.

The banks have been letting people down for too long. Consumer trust and confidence is at an all time low. The government must take action now and push forward with reforms.

We are urging the public to show the inquiry they have had enough of the banks' bad behaviour by joining our campaign. You can support the campaign by signing the 'Big Change' pledge.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1648783 2012-07-04T19:00:00-04:00 2012-09-03T05:12:07-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
Consumers have clearly had enough. Four in five (83%) of people we asked said they haven't seen any improvement in UK banks over the last year and two-thirds (66%) aren't confident that the government will act in consumers' best interests when implementing banking reform.

It's no wonder that consumer trust has been badly shaken when banks and bankers continue to be untouchable and fines only represent a tiny proportion of their revenue. It will take more than the resignation of Bob Diamond at Barclays to restore consumer trust in the banking industry.

Now is the time for tough questions. The public rightly deserve an answer as soon as possible as to whether retail banking customers lost money because of the LIBOR rates-rigging. The parliamentary inquiry must provide full disclosure including how widespread it was, who was involved, and importantly how consumers have been affected. However, we don't want the inquiry to hold up reform - there must be no excuses, no further delay in taking action to fix our broken banking system.

The banks have proven they can not manage change themselves. We want urgent and immediate action to put trust and ethics back into the banking system. For a start, we're calling for the banking sector to be referred to the Competition Commission to address the stranglehold this small number of powerful players has on our current accounts, loans, savings and mortgages. This is key if we are going to see any meaningful change in the culture of British banking and make customers the number one priority again.

The government should also start implementing the ring-fence between retail and investment banking as soon as practicable, and not wait until the banks' preferred date of 2019. And we'd like to see a new professional standards body imposed on the banking industry, with individuals required to comply with a code of conduct like the medical profession, and individuals struck off for malpractice.

But enforcement and reform alone are not enough. The fines handed down to banks are not a deterrent. Last week Barclays was fined less than £60 million in the UK, compared to £231 million in the US, and has paid out £2 billion in compensation and settlements in the last three years, but that seems to have little effect. The majority of people we polled think that if banks have broken the law the individuals involved should be prosecuted. So we're please that the Serious Fraud Office is looking at this.

It's also vital that the regulator is a tougher watchdog. The new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) must be given the power to stand up to the banks and promote greater competition in a market that is dominated by a handful of big players.

This week we will be putting more pressure on the government and the Financial Services Authority to tell consumers whether they have suffered financially from the Libor interest rates-fixing scandal. If people have lost out, the government must make sure the banks put this right.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1576733 2012-06-07T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-07T05:12:03-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
Ahead of his annual Mansion House speech and the expected publication of the White Paper on the Banking Reform Bill on 14 June, we are calling on the government to stand firm on its banking reform commitments.

Financial stability is a key consumer issue and it is important the chancellor has ordinary people in mind when taking these reforms forward. But our survey found that 71% of people were not confident the government will act in the consumer's best interest when implementing banking reform.

One reason for this scepticism is the intense lobbying from the banks since the Independent Commission on Banking report, including a crescendo of scare-mongering on the risk of the end of 'free banking' and of big financial institutions leaving the country.

The chancellor must resist buckling under this pressure.

Plans to ring-fence risky investment banking from essential consumer retail banking must not be derailed by vested interests and must stick to the original timetable. While Which? supports the ring-fencing proposals, this also needs to go alongside a wider review of corporate governance in the banking sector.

We also want to see banks incentivised to provide better value products and decent customer service. So the government must make sure that the competition recommendations of the ICB Report are fully enacted to increase competition and choice on the high street. The introduction of portable bank account numbers would be one way to make it easier for people to switch bank accounts with confidence and force banks to genuinely compete for customers.

Consumers should never again have to foot the bill for a banking collapse that required a bailout to the tune of £2000 for every man, woman and child. Without strong action that shakes up the culture of British banking, we will all continue to pay the price.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1527766 2012-05-20T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-20T05:12:15-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
Which? supports the ambition for homes to be more energy efficient and we welcome help for people to install energy saving measures in their home, especially at a time of tight household finances and rising energy costs. As it is planned, though, there is a real possibility that consumers will be persuaded to take on a big Green Deal loan and the promised savings on their energy bills will fail to materialise. This is because, while there will be a personalised assessment on savings, the amount a Green Deal company can lend a consumer won't be calculated taking into account their actual energy use. Instead they will uses average figures which can give an inaccurate picture.

The Green Deal's 'Golden Rule' says that consumers will not pay back more in their regular payments than they save on their bill from using less energy. But there is nothing to guarantee this and there is no redress if people do end up paying more than they save.

We also think there is a real risk that consumers will be sold products that they don't want or need because the government has said that companies can use the Green Deal as an opportunity to sell other home improvements unrelated to energy efficiency. This opens up the opportunity for hard selling by energy and finance companies that are already distrusted for their past activities on the doorstep, and would make for complex and confusing financing.

The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) will be launched alongside the Green Deal and used mainly to subsidise expensive solid wall insulation, which many older homes need. However, the cost of ECO will be passed though to everyone's energy bills, a move that is difficult to justify when it is likely to benefit the better off and when many people on lower incomes are already struggling to pay. It would be fairer to allocate more of the ECO to help fuel-poor homes. It would also be better to step up investment in low cost energy saving measures like loft and cavity wall insulation that will have a bigger immediate impact, since it will help a larger number of people to manage their bills.

Today, Which? is setting the government five challenges to improve the Green Deal to make it fairer and more attractive for consumers. It must not be a licence to mis-sell products that people don't want or need; the estimated savings must be tailored to people's actual energy use; there must be no harsh penalties for early repayment; quotes must be clear and comparable; and the ECO must be fair to all and cost effective for consumers.

Too many of the government's policies - from the carbon floor price to the £11 billion smart meter fiasco - are likely to prove ineffective at reducing energy consumption while consumers foot the bill. People tell us that rising fuel bills are their number one financial concern. With energy companies already warning of price rises this coming winter, the government simply cannot expect consumers to pick up the tab for ill-thought out policies that won't work.

With the launch just months away, our message to the government is clear - time is running out to rescue the Green Deal.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1517289 2012-05-16T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-16T05:12:04-04:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/ Big Switch with 38 Degrees in February, we knew it wouldn't be easy. This was a completely new way to buy energy using the power of thousands of consumers to collectively negotiate a better deal with suppliers. Nothing has ever been attempted on this scale in the UK before and in a market where inertia rules, and industry players have a vested interest in keeping it that way, it was never going to be plain sailing.

The good news is that we had an incredible response, with more than 285,000 people joining together to get a cheaper deal. Collective switching has also captured the imagination of politicians from across the political spectrum, from the Energy Secretary, Ed Davey to the whole Shadow Cabinet pledging support for the Big Switch.

The reaction from some of the energy suppliers was less enthusiastic. In fact two of the major suppliers told us the Big Switch would never succeed. While we hoped that as many suppliers as possible would take part, we knew that not all them could be competitive enough to beat the cheapest deals already on the market.

On the day, we were pleased that five suppliers - big and small - signed up to take part in the reverse auction. The final result was that Co-operative Energy beat the best deals on the market and won in all three categories.

We're estimating that more than 200,000 households could save by switching via The Big Switch - and the average savings for switchers are around £123. For those who are on the worst value deals on the market, switching could cut as much as £200 a year off their bills. If everyone who signed up switches, that would be a £25 million saving on household energy bills.

Our aim for The Big Switch was simple. We wanted to help as many people as possible to save money on their energy bills. By the end of the month, we will have saved consumers money and moved the market with a new market leading fixed deal. And we have reached thousands of people on terrible tariffs who signed up in person and by post - not the usual switchers.

Job done then? Not quite. We're now in the process of sending out tens of thousands of personalised emails with tailored savings quotes and tariff recommendations. Everyone has until the 28 May to decide whether or not they want to switch.

Overall the response has been positive, but perhaps unsurprisingly some of those with most to lose from collective switching have seized any opportunity to criticise the Big Switch. We're unapologetic about standing up for consumers in the face of industry players' vested interests.

Some commercial switching outfits were quick to claim that there was a cheaper tariff available on the day, and advised people to use their websites instead.

But they conveniently failed to mention that we'd deliberately excluded the tariff because it was a variable rate and only open to a small number of customers. We want every potential switcher to be as confident as possible that the deal they switch to won't suddenly be hiked up. When one major supplier has already warned of future price increases, we think it is irresponsible to recommend a deal that could go up at any time when the price difference is relatively small (£21 on an average bill of around £1270 a year).

Others said that it is unfair to cap the number of people who can switch to the Co-op deal to 30,000, leaving the rest on 'worse' deals. But the truth is that nothing is ever that simple in the energy market. We know one deal will not work out cheapest for everyone, as a single energy tariff has a minimum of 98 different prices due to variations in regions, meter type and tariff structures. That's why we're sending out tailored tariff recommendations. Based on these, we estimate that over 200,000 people will actually be able to save money on their bills.

We're pleased with what we've achieved with the Big Switch - shifting the market, delivering a saving for over 200,000 people and reaching out to those who have never switched before, but it's important to remember that this is just one step.

It took a lot of people to achieve this. But a properly functioning, competitive market would respond much better to mass demand. That's why we'll continue to push for wider energy market reform to make it work for consumers, and continue to campaign for a better and fairer deal for all through our Affordable Energy Campaign.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.974110 2011-09-22T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-22T05:12:01-05:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/
Which? agrees with the Energy Secretary that simple and fair energy tariffs are needed. Not because people "can't be bothered" to shop around, but because many people see little point in switching. And because they don't trust energy companies to offer them the cheapest deal.

The way energy suppliers confuse consumers is highlighted by a new Which? investigation into energy tariffs. We asked 36 people including a solicitor, an engineer and an accountant, to work out an energy bill using nothing but information from a supplier's website. Just one - a company director - could do it. Even the Head of Maths at the Edexcel exam board, who oversaw the test, said energy tariffs are so complex that even A-Level maths students would struggle to calculate their annual bill.

But energy tariffs aren't just confusing - they're also unfair. At present, a lot of tariffs penalise lower users. We've looked at all major suppliers' standard tariffs and found that the less energy you use, the more you pay for each unit.

On average, gas prices for low users are 23% higher than for high users and electricity prices are 14% more. This clearly weakens the incentive to use less energy and it is likely to unfairly hit lower income groups.

So it is time for the regulator, Ofgem, to use its powers and introduce simple and fair tariffs for everyone. This means getting rid of complex tiered pricing and introducing a straightforward daily charge and unit rate. This will allow people to understand and compare tariffs at a glance, so that they can get the cheapest deals available.

Which?'s tariffs investigation is the start of our Affordable Energy Campaign.

Part of this will be about people taking action themselves to cut their bills and insulate their homes. But the main responsibility for change must lie with energy companies, Ofgem and Government.

In the next year our Affordable Energy Campaign will be pushing for changes right across the energy agenda and this includes asking fundamental questions about the structure of the energy market. When 60% of people have never switched, we need to think hard about how we will ever get people to shop around and get better deals. Tough questions must be asked about whether the major suppliers' customer bases will need to be broken up in order to achieve a competitive market.

We'll also be questioning the assumption that new energy initiatives should be paid for out of our energy bills. I don't dispute the attempts to reduce carbon emissions or address fuel poverty, but the cost of this must be fair and transparent. And the Government must be honest with people about how much these agendas will add to our bills over the years ahead.

Lastly, we'll be making sure that people have the help they need to use less energy. We all know it's important to make our homes more energy efficient and reduce our consumption, but new ideas will be needed to get over the barriers stopping people from insulating their homes.

We want people to get involved in this campaign and be part of the energy debate. But only through action from Ofgem, the Government and the energy companies they will we really begin to see that change is possible and move to an energy market that can work better for all of us.

Which? is asking people to email Ofgem's chief executive to ask him to tackle tariffs which.co.uk/tackletariffs]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.972364 2011-09-21T09:53:37-04:00 2011-11-21T05:12:02-05:00

Richard Lloyd http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lloyd/ payment protection insurance (PPI) for years. They've finally admitted they were in the wrong and set aside £7.4 billion to compensate consumers.

Now, claims management companies (CMCs), who will act on your behalf to get your money back, want a piece of that lucrative market -- they stand to make an estimated £2 billion in handling PPI claims alone.

But when Which? investigated CMCs, we found that not everyone was playing by the rules. Misleading advice, unfair contract terms and a lack of transparency about fees were all too common.

Where are they going wrong?

The principle of a CMC is fine. You might not want to submit a claim yourself, perhaps because you don't want to deal with all the paperwork, or you feel intimidated by your bank. A good CMC could take the hassle out of this process for you.

Here's the but - and it's a big one. They charge a hefty fee for their services, typically around 30 per cent after VAT. They're supposed to tell you there's a free service out there in the form of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to help you claim if your bank isn't playing ball but two thirds of the companies we spoke to didn't mention the FOS.

They're not allowed to suggest you have a higher chance of success, or getting more money back, if you use them instead of doing it yourself but 6 of the 25 CMCs we spoke to did just that.

Some of them charge money upfront, potentially locking you in before you can consider your options, and many others call you up or text you out of the blue offering to process a claim on your behalf.

It's often not even clear what you'll end up paying. You might assume that the fee would be calculated based on the lump sum of money paid to them, money you've paid out and are being refunded. Wrong. Some firms include a reduction in future loan repayments as part of their definition of compensation, meaning you could receive far less than you expect, and in some cases even end up owing the CMC money.

What can you do?

If you think you've been mis-sold PPI, claim it back for free. Both Which? and MoneySavingExpert.com offer free advice and online tools to help you submit a claim. Alternatively, contact your bank direct, they're obliged to deal with your complaint effectively. If they don't, complain to the Financial Ombudsman.

If you're in arrears with a loan linked to a PPI policy, never, ever use a CMC. The chances are that you will end up more in debt as any compensation awarded will be used to pay off some of your debts, so you could then owe the CMC money for its fee.

If you really do want to use a CMC, here are our top tips:

• Check if the CMC you are considering is authorised by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).



• Have a thorough talk with the CMC before signing up to anything or sharing your bank details.



• Read the terms and conditions carefully, particularly the section relating to fees or compensation.



• Make sure you'll only pay the CMC at the end of the process, don't pay anything upfront, and never give your card details over the phone.



• When you do pay, use a credit card so you have extra protection.

If you feel you have been mis-treated by a CMC, follow its complaints procedure. If that doesn't work, or you're not satisfied with the outcome, complain to the MoJ.

What Which? wants

Which? wants the claims management industry to clean up its act. Done properly, CMCs could provide a useful service to consumers who, for whatever reason, don't want to submit a claim for themselves.

We want the MoJ to take swifter and tougher action against companies that break the rules - a clear message must be sent to the entire claims management industry that there will be serious consequences for misleading consumers.

But for now, the message to consumers is clear: avoid claims management companies, do your own claim for PPI compensation and save yourself a lot of money.]]>