Price cuts will not “scratch the surface of fuel poverty”
March 13, 2009 at 3:12 am
News of cuts in energy prices has been welcomed by consumers but let’s not get too excited. The reductions, which average out at £60 per year or 4.5%, will “not even scratch the surface” of fuel poverty according to uSwitch.com.
Fuel poverty is defined as relating to households which spend 10% of their net income on energy bills. There are currently a staggering 5.4 million households in fuel poverty and this year’s reductions will remove a mere 180,000, leaving around 5.2 million households suffering. The figures for 2007 show only 4 million homes in fuel poverty but a succession of sharp price hikes last year has swelled the numbers considerably.
It was once thought to be a problem which affected pensioners in the main but there is evidence that other groups are just as likely to fall into fuel poverty. Those at risk include families with young children, single income families and single person households. The group least likely to suffer is double income professional households, although with rising unemployment even they may be affected this year.
Ann Robinson of uSwitch.com described fuel poverty as “a ticking time bomb” which the government must address with “decisive action” if it is to stand any chance of sorting the problem out. She fears that rising unemployment will cause the problem to “snowball out of control” and advises those affected to speak to their energy supplier to see what can be done to assist: they may for instance be entitled to a social tariff. She suggested that they should also do what they can to help themselves, by paying the lowest possible charge and trying to reduce their consumption.
Warm Front scheme criticised by charities
March 5, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The Government’s Warm Front scheme has come in for heavy criticism from charities and consumers alike, as well as the National Audit Office. The scheme is designed to help those in fuel poverty by providing grants for measures such as insulation and efficient boilers and has cost the government £1.4 billion so far, with another £974 million to be paid out over the next three years.
Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged has been reported as saying that the charity has received thousands of complaints about the scheme. Not only are elderly people being let down but there seems to be little or no accountability over how the taxpayer’s money is spent.
Grants of up to £2700 are available to certain householders to have work such as loft and cavity wall insulation, installation of central heating, insulation of hot water tanks and draught proofing carried out. However, many people have complained of having to pay thousands of pounds to top up from their own funds for work such as boiler installation.
Help the Aged have described the scheme as “unfit for purpose in its present form” whilst the National Audit Office criticised it for “inefficient targeting of resources”.
The government depends on eaga, a contractor who administers the scheme and is responsible for 139 sub-contractors. According to many disgruntled householders eaga’s sub contractors are inefficient and over-charge for work as well as being slow to respond to complaints.
So far some 1.8 million people have used the Warm Front scheme and a quarter of those have had to top up their grant by an average of £581. Many more have been dissuaded from having work carried out because of the necessity to top up the grant. With the scheme being aimed at the most vulnerable of households, this should perhaps come as no surprise.
