The spark has gone out of SPARK ENERGY

[#1]

SPARK ENERGY co,... has gone bust....

If you are a customer..... take a meter reading NOW>.... then wait for the new supplier to contact you... according to OFGEM regulator..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/breaking-spark-energy-collapses-leaving-13633233

[#2]

over time the posts on MSE forum have not been impressive regarding Spark. It seems more and more apparent that the risk of failure has to be greater for any business attempting to trade at the lowest margin above cost, should those costs rise. It's similar with subsidies. Costs rise x%, and either the subsidised price has to rise at x+n% hurting  the buyer, or the subsidy does hurting the taxpayer.

I feel sorry for some of those affected, for the hassle they'll endure, but not all; sorry for those, who on low incomes need to use bargain suppliers. OTOH for many others my view is that ( controversial, yes!) their drive to the super cheap arises from a odd form of greed. Those people must know the risks and ignore them.

Why should they receive 100% protection?

[#3]

---

@Luzern wrote:

I feel sorry for some of those affected, for the hassle they'll endure, but not all; sorry for those, who on low incomes need to use bargain suppliers. OTOH for many others my view is that ( controversial, yes!) their drive to the super cheap arises from a odd form of greed. Those people must know the risks and ignore them.

Why should they receive 100% protection?

---

Because, the 100% protection, serves ALL users...  not just those who "can afford to lose out"... the system is fair to all... no matter if you have thousands in the bank... or not.... everyone needs an energy supply, and life without it, can be unbearable for rich and poor alike... 

[#4]

@shutter On the need for everyone to have a supply: yes. However is it fair that those, who have means, should not take the responsibility of insuring their contract with the supplier at a price reflective of the insurer's perceived risk of the supplier's failure, rather than palming that cost on to others, who may be less well off?

[#5]

@Luzern as I understand it, from the page quoted in my O.P. , there is no cost.... the OFGEM department assigns a new supplier to those who have been let down by the incompetent supplier that has just gone bust...

ensuring that rich and poor are treated the same..inasmuchas they will continue to get their energy supply.

just because you are rich, should not mean that .... Sorry mate, your elec and gas,  is cut off, because you should have taken out some kind of insurance against our company going bust, because you can afford to....  but the poor people will still get their supply because we (OFGEM)  care more about them, than we do about you rich b....... s

[#6]

@shutter the cost is there somewhere: it has to be. In fact it is by a levy on all bills, so, as far I know, be a supplier's business model less or more risky the cost is the same. That is stupid. Although the levy may be minute, it should be shaped to the risk; that's insurance. In most things the person using pays, or accepts the risk on themselves. In most cases the poor person who cannot afford to insure, is just considered unfortunate. Hard cheese. I am suggesting that they will still receive full protection.

[#7]

So , what insurance do you have against your energy company, or other utility company  that supplies you with essential services..should it/they fail.. compared to those poor people ,... or perhaps  compared to those rich people... where do you find such insurance? 

The system as it stands, is fair TO ALL,.. no matter... and your arguments are not really standing up to scrutiny well.

[#8]

Before we decide to get spliced, shall we leave it there?:smiley:

Insurance was used loosely: I just think that use of a cheap probably with a short track record, probably under capitalised supplier, should carry a cost.

AFAIAC let others take over thread!

[#9]

@Luzern  Yeah.... we`re still friends.............  Mwah ! :kiss:

[#10]

I use one of the smaller companies and have done for several years. Yes, I have done it for "penny pinching" reasons if you like. Why should I not be protected because I want to look after the pennies? Why should I be treated any different to someone who can't be bothered to switch and is happy to stay on the over inflated prices of the big 6? Are you saying that people who use sim only cheap mobile deals are greedy for not wanting to inflate the pockets of the big operators?

Sorry, don't agree with you at all.

Mark

[#11]

No one appears to have mentioned the fact that if you did (have) buy insurance to protect yourself by the time you’d paid the premium you may well be cheaper staying with one of the main stream providers.

[#12]

---

@Marksfish wrote:

I use one of the smaller companies and have done for several years. Yes, I have done it for "penny pinching" reasons if you like. Why should I not be protected because I want to look after the pennies? Why should I be treated any different to someone who can't be bothered to switch and is happy to stay on the over inflated prices of the big 6? Are you saying that people who use sim only cheap mobile deals are greedy for not wanting to inflate the pockets of the big operators?

Sorry, don't agree with you at all.

Mark

---

@Marksfish I was not saying people like you should not be protected, but that the insurance, which is what a levy is, cost should relate to the risk of a particular outfit failing. 

That some cannot be bothered to switch and pay more is neither here nor there.

[#13]

---

@Mook wrote:

No one appears to have mentioned the fact that if you did (have) buy insurance to protect yourself by the time you’d paid the premium you may well be cheaper staying with one of the main stream providers.

---

@Mook Not necessarily buying, as in my recent response to @shutter tried to say, and my reply to @Marksfish too.

I doubt the levy as it is structured adds much to the price, but yes, a restructured levy would reduce the margin between suppliers.

[#14]

@Luzern However is it fair that those, who have means, should not take the responsibility of insuring their contract with the supplier ...

So how can you do this without buying a policy?

[#15]

@Mook As it is now, one does pay a quasi premium at a flat rate within one's chosen tariff, and that saves the need to look for stand-alone or included in household cover. My point, which doesn't appear to get home, is that the current levy collected by the supplier, and paid over to e.g Ofgem, should relate to that supplier's risk profile. The supplier will choose to pass it on to the consumer, one hopes. After all, cui bono is the levy (quasi premium) other than who uses the failing supplier's service?