• Hello Bev,
    Thanks for bringing the care into the community you hit the nail on the head
    Last edited by Strutt G; 11-02-19 at 19:30.
    1
  • Hello Bev,
    Thanks for bringing the care into the community you hit the nail on the head


  • Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    From what I can see old supplier was 2.85p/kWh and 13.48p/kWh (gas and leccy respectively). Whilst PP is 3.2025p/kWh and 14.80p/kWh. No service charge except for VAT @ 5% with old supplier
    If you can still get those prices from your old supplier then maybe best to switch back. Or were you switching away because it was coming to an end and going up? Not sure what your comparison site was up to but I advise in future to do what I do and double check the figures using the unit price etc before you make any move.
    3
  • Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    From what I can see old supplier was 2.85p/kWh and 13.48p/kWh (gas and leccy respectively). Whilst PP is 3.2025p/kWh and 14.80p/kWh. No service charge except for VAT @ 5% with old supplier
    If you can still get those prices from your old supplier then maybe best to switch back. Or were you switching away because it was coming to an end and going up? Not sure what your comparison site was up to but I advise in future to do what I do and double check the figures using the unit price etc before you make any move.


  • Couldn’t agree more 👍. It’s the ONLY way IMO
    Peace is always beautiful.

    WALT WHITMAN
    0
  • Couldn’t agree more 👍. It’s the ONLY way IMO
    Peace is always beautiful.

    WALT WHITMAN


  • Quote Originally Posted by JennyR68 View Post
    If you can still get those prices from your old supplier then maybe best to switch back. Or were you switching away because it was coming to an end and going up? Not sure what your comparison site was up to but I advise in future to do what I do and double check the figures using the unit price etc before you make any move.
    Hi JennyR68,
    Articulate response, I agree with you, I know we are all different and have specific needs but, at the end of the day, just DOUBLE CHECK the details. 👍
    1
  • Quote Originally Posted by JennyR68 View Post
    If you can still get those prices from your old supplier then maybe best to switch back. Or were you switching away because it was coming to an end and going up? Not sure what your comparison site was up to but I advise in future to do what I do and double check the figures using the unit price etc before you make any move.
    Hi JennyR68,
    Articulate response, I agree with you, I know we are all different and have specific needs but, at the end of the day, just DOUBLE CHECK the details. 👍


  • Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Couldn’t agree more 👍. It’s the ONLY way IMO
    Hi Bev,
    I love to learn stuff so, what does IMO mean?
    1
  • Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Couldn’t agree more 👍. It’s the ONLY way IMO
    Hi Bev,
    I love to learn stuff so, what does IMO mean?


  • Bless you Dai. It simply means IN MY OPINION 👍
    Peace is always beautiful.

    WALT WHITMAN
    1
  • Bless you Dai. It simply means IN MY OPINION 👍
    Peace is always beautiful.

    WALT WHITMAN


  • Thanks Bev, I’ll sleep a happy man tonight IMO 😂😂.

    Cheers Bev 🥃🥃

    Dai 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬 󠁿
    1
  • Thanks Bev, I’ll sleep a happy man tonight IMO 😂😂.

    Cheers Bev 🥃🥃

    Dai 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬 󠁿


  • Hi Llyr
    So you're now saying that they quoted you but when it came to paying they have increased the estimated usage without you agreeing to the new figures, thus pushing up the cost?
    I'm getting more confuzzulated by this the more I read.
    I can only state the obvious here
    YOUR USAGE IS IRRELEVANT - YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR WHAT YOU USE, NO MORE, NO LESS.
    so lets forget about the usage figures for the moment and focus on your reply.
    "The quote was CHEAPER than the original supplier"
    By which you mean that for the same usage as the original supplier the unit prices + membership costs less any dual fuel discount was less than the original supplier would have charged for the same units plus any standing charges less any discounts?
    and then PP upped the expected usage and upped the Direct debit??
    Well that won't matter because you won't use those units will you? So you won't be charged for them, so you can either reduce the direct debit to match what you will use (or wait 6 months and see if your statement balance is increasing.)

    I have read the other replies, I covered this initially but now I think you're saying that PP aren't charging you the quote you accepted?
    The big issue for me and I suspect the usual cohort of members who reply, is that we are trying to clarify if the statement you made originally is true, which was that PP were supposed to be cheaper but you've found them to be more expensive.
    I strongly suspect that isn't the case BUT if it is we'd like to know what's happened to cause this so we can help anyone else who may end up in your shoes...
    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    The quote was CHEAPER than the original supplier which is why I went for it. Why would I switch to a more expensive tariff?! Exact usages (gained from old supplier) were inputted so why are the payments still based on ‘expected usage’? And no, the old supplier wasnt undercharging as I’ve had the final statement balancing out the account - cheaper than PP. ‘More or less than the old suppliet is irrelevant’ - it certainly is relevant, people switch their energy provider to get better, cheaper deals otherwise everybody would stay put
    2
  • Hi Llyr
    So you're now saying that they quoted you but when it came to paying they have increased the estimated usage without you agreeing to the new figures, thus pushing up the cost?
    I'm getting more confuzzulated by this the more I read.
    I can only state the obvious here
    YOUR USAGE IS IRRELEVANT - YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR WHAT YOU USE, NO MORE, NO LESS.
    so lets forget about the usage figures for the moment and focus on your reply.
    "The quote was CHEAPER than the original supplier"
    By which you mean that for the same usage as the original supplier the unit prices + membership costs less any dual fuel discount was less than the original supplier would have charged for the same units plus any standing charges less any discounts?
    and then PP upped the expected usage and upped the Direct debit??
    Well that won't matter because you won't use those units will you? So you won't be charged for them, so you can either reduce the direct debit to match what you will use (or wait 6 months and see if your statement balance is increasing.)

    I have read the other replies, I covered this initially but now I think you're saying that PP aren't charging you the quote you accepted?
    The big issue for me and I suspect the usual cohort of members who reply, is that we are trying to clarify if the statement you made originally is true, which was that PP were supposed to be cheaper but you've found them to be more expensive.
    I strongly suspect that isn't the case BUT if it is we'd like to know what's happened to cause this so we can help anyone else who may end up in your shoes...
    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    The quote was CHEAPER than the original supplier which is why I went for it. Why would I switch to a more expensive tariff?! Exact usages (gained from old supplier) were inputted so why are the payments still based on ‘expected usage’? And no, the old supplier wasnt undercharging as I’ve had the final statement balancing out the account - cheaper than PP. ‘More or less than the old suppliet is irrelevant’ - it certainly is relevant, people switch their energy provider to get better, cheaper deals otherwise everybody would stay put


  • Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    I’m guessing Ebico?
    No it wasn’t Ebico. Octopus Energy
    0
  • Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    I’m guessing Ebico?
    No it wasn’t Ebico. Octopus Energy


  • [QUOTE=Llyr;23405]Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    [COLOR="silver"]- - - Updated - - -[/

    Hi Llyr,
    I think Woz is trying to DRILL down to the actual FACTS of your issue - he has a huge knowledge of how energy suppliers operate & will make every effort to assist customers. He is listening!!
    2
  • [QUOTE=Llyr;23405]Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    [COLOR="silver"]- - - Updated - - -[/

    Hi Llyr,
    I think Woz is trying to DRILL down to the actual FACTS of your issue - he has a huge knowledge of how energy suppliers operate & will make every effort to assist customers. He is listening!!


  • hi Llyr
    Yes I read it all, if it said it was cheaper on the comparison website then it was probably cheaper (for the same usage in both cases), unless the comparison website got it wrong?

    The irony here is that it's true PP can be more expensive than some others for lower usage, you're saying that PP is working out more expensive for higher usage?

    I'm sorry if you don't agree with my reply.
    So can we start again..

    1. What date did you get your quote?
    2. When was your switch date?
    3. What is your supply area? (on PP's price list HERE)
    4. What is your expected energy usage in your quote (gas and electric)
    5. How much was your quote
    6. How much are PP actually taking on the direct debit
    7. What were the unit rates and standing charge for Octopus
    8. Which comparison website was it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    - - - Updated - - -



    No it wasn’t Ebico. Octopus Energy
    0
  • hi Llyr
    Yes I read it all, if it said it was cheaper on the comparison website then it was probably cheaper (for the same usage in both cases), unless the comparison website got it wrong?

    The irony here is that it's true PP can be more expensive than some others for lower usage, you're saying that PP is working out more expensive for higher usage?

    I'm sorry if you don't agree with my reply.
    So can we start again..

    1. What date did you get your quote?
    2. When was your switch date?
    3. What is your supply area? (on PP's price list HERE)
    4. What is your expected energy usage in your quote (gas and electric)
    5. How much was your quote
    6. How much are PP actually taking on the direct debit
    7. What were the unit rates and standing charge for Octopus
    8. Which comparison website was it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Because it stated that it would be cheaper on the comparison website!!! Haven’t you read the ongoing thread??

    - - - Updated - - -



    No it wasn’t Ebico. Octopus Energy


  • Woz; the quote provided by PP is the same as the DD so I have no issue here. I must admit that I’m at fault here as I didnt check the quote properly. However the reason I didn’t check is because I was expecting the quote to match what was given to me initially via the comparison website. There’s a missing link somewhere between the price quoted on the comparison website and the price then quoted by PP in their initial e-mail. With regards your point on usage being irrelevant, I’m sorry but I might be missing something here. If prices arent based on usages then what are they based on?!
    0
  • Woz; the quote provided by PP is the same as the DD so I have no issue here. I must admit that I’m at fault here as I didnt check the quote properly. However the reason I didn’t check is because I was expecting the quote to match what was given to me initially via the comparison website. There’s a missing link somewhere between the price quoted on the comparison website and the price then quoted by PP in their initial e-mail. With regards your point on usage being irrelevant, I’m sorry but I might be missing something here. If prices arent based on usages then what are they based on?!


  • Name:  tenor.gif
Views: 37
Size:  1.13 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by Strutt G View Post
    Hello Bev,
    Thanks for bringing the care into the community you hit the nail on the head
    3
  • Name:  tenor.gif
Views: 37
Size:  1.13 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by Strutt G View Post
    Hello Bev,
    Thanks for bringing the care into the community you hit the nail on the head


  • oops...changed my mind...
    how about "I Must Obey..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Bless you Dai. It simply means IN MY OPINION ������
    Last edited by woz; 12-02-19 at 00:20.
    0
  • oops...changed my mind...
    how about "I Must Obey..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Bless you Dai. It simply means IN MY OPINION ������


  • hi Llyr
    the reason I say the usage is irrelevant is in the context of your post. When you do a comparison you get a comparison based on the same usage for each provider, and yes of course the ultimate price you pay is based on the number of units used, but, I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you said PP was working out more expensive, and there are only 2 things that can vary, one is the number of units and the other is the combined price of the energy+ standing charges/membership fees.
    PP's quote is based on usage, their price per unit is not based on usage (unless you look at the way ofgem work but that's for another time)
    As you cant do a valid comparison if you quote a different usage to each provider, I'm saying lets take that, for the moment out of the equation and assume that you are only going to compare for the same number of units for each provider.
    What I'm also trying to say is that you can't change the number of units you actually use, you are going to use what you are going to use, it makes little difference you'd have to pay for the same units used with whichever provider you were with whether it be double or half or exactly what you think it should be (with the caveat that if it was a very extreme difference it could affect the comparison, but that's clearly not the issue here)

    You've now told me that the quote you got from PP wasn't the same as shown on the comparison website, and that's what seems to be the issue here.

    Did the comparison site send you the quote for PP or did you get that separately from PP after you'd been to the comparison website.
    If so do you have that quote still? If you do we can get to the bottom of the disparity between that and PP's quote.
    Were you on a fixed price deal which was coming to an end when you switched?
    The reason I asked you about dates is there was a price rise announced for 15th Jan, it was announced on 27th Nov. That's why I asked when you got your quote and when you switched.

    I forgot to ask, are you on an economy7 meter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Woz; the quote provided by PP is the same as the DD so I have no issue here. I must admit that I’m at fault here as I didnt check the quote properly. However the reason I didn’t check is because I was expecting the quote to match what was given to me initially via the comparison website. There’s a missing link somewhere between the price quoted on the comparison website and the price then quoted by PP in their initial e-mail. With regards your point on usage being irrelevant, I’m sorry but I might be missing something here. If prices arent based on usages then what are they based on?!
    Last edited by woz; 12-02-19 at 00:39.
    0
  • hi Llyr
    the reason I say the usage is irrelevant is in the context of your post. When you do a comparison you get a comparison based on the same usage for each provider, and yes of course the ultimate price you pay is based on the number of units used, but, I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you said PP was working out more expensive, and there are only 2 things that can vary, one is the number of units and the other is the combined price of the energy+ standing charges/membership fees.
    PP's quote is based on usage, their price per unit is not based on usage (unless you look at the way ofgem work but that's for another time)
    As you cant do a valid comparison if you quote a different usage to each provider, I'm saying lets take that, for the moment out of the equation and assume that you are only going to compare for the same number of units for each provider.
    What I'm also trying to say is that you can't change the number of units you actually use, you are going to use what you are going to use, it makes little difference you'd have to pay for the same units used with whichever provider you were with whether it be double or half or exactly what you think it should be (with the caveat that if it was a very extreme difference it could affect the comparison, but that's clearly not the issue here)

    You've now told me that the quote you got from PP wasn't the same as shown on the comparison website, and that's what seems to be the issue here.

    Did the comparison site send you the quote for PP or did you get that separately from PP after you'd been to the comparison website.
    If so do you have that quote still? If you do we can get to the bottom of the disparity between that and PP's quote.
    Were you on a fixed price deal which was coming to an end when you switched?
    The reason I asked you about dates is there was a price rise announced for 15th Jan, it was announced on 27th Nov. That's why I asked when you got your quote and when you switched.

    I forgot to ask, are you on an economy7 meter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Woz; the quote provided by PP is the same as the DD so I have no issue here. I must admit that I’m at fault here as I didnt check the quote properly. However the reason I didn’t check is because I was expecting the quote to match what was given to me initially via the comparison website. There’s a missing link somewhere between the price quoted on the comparison website and the price then quoted by PP in their initial e-mail. With regards your point on usage being irrelevant, I’m sorry but I might be missing something here. If prices arent based on usages then what are they based on?!


  • Hi Woz. When comparing energy suppliers, the only thing I am interested in (and I’d imagine this would be true of most people) is what the cost will be, whether monthly, annual etc. Price per unit - I don’t look at (although I do understand what you’re saying with price per unit not based on usage). The amount of detail you’ve included above is way beyond what I would usually drill into. So when I enter my usage over the last 12 months into a comparison website and it states that I can make a saving (I’ve tried to attach a screenshot but not sure if it’s worked) I expect a saving. What I’ve ended up with is a higher annual cost than what I previously had. This might be a problem withthe comparison website, it might be PP’s problem, dont know really. I’d imagine PP should shoulder some of the blame as they surely provide the comparison sites with their prices? You’re obviously very knowleadgeable in this field (and admit that I’m not) but I’ll again revert back to what I’ve said all along; I was told I would be making a saving of £98 annually when switching to PP from old supplier and I’m not. What I’d suggest you, and other members of this community should do is look into why this annomally has occurred with the comparison website. what I’m going to do is see whether I can switch back to my old supplier without a charge (highly unlikely I’d imagine as I’m past the cooling off period). Seems unlikely that we’re going to get a resolution here but genuine thanks to you and everyone else for trying to sort this, it is appreciated
    0
  • Hi Woz. When comparing energy suppliers, the only thing I am interested in (and I’d imagine this would be true of most people) is what the cost will be, whether monthly, annual etc. Price per unit - I don’t look at (although I do understand what you’re saying with price per unit not based on usage). The amount of detail you’ve included above is way beyond what I would usually drill into. So when I enter my usage over the last 12 months into a comparison website and it states that I can make a saving (I’ve tried to attach a screenshot but not sure if it’s worked) I expect a saving. What I’ve ended up with is a higher annual cost than what I previously had. This might be a problem withthe comparison website, it might be PP’s problem, dont know really. I’d imagine PP should shoulder some of the blame as they surely provide the comparison sites with their prices? You’re obviously very knowleadgeable in this field (and admit that I’m not) but I’ll again revert back to what I’ve said all along; I was told I would be making a saving of £98 annually when switching to PP from old supplier and I’m not. What I’d suggest you, and other members of this community should do is look into why this annomally has occurred with the comparison website. what I’m going to do is see whether I can switch back to my old supplier without a charge (highly unlikely I’d imagine as I’m past the cooling off period). Seems unlikely that we’re going to get a resolution here but genuine thanks to you and everyone else for trying to sort this, it is appreciated


  • Hi there

    I'm a little hesitant to enter into this one! My first thought when I read your initial post was that the most likely explanation was the higher winter direct debit payment. So I was intrigued to read that Octopus also offered a direct debit with different winter and summer payments - they don't seem to now, because I couldn't find any reference to it on their website.

    What I did find on their website was this statement: "When you first join us, we estimate your monthly payment based on information from your quote, and from your previous supplier. We only get access to your previous supplier's data after your switch, due to data protection rules. This means that sometimes, you may have ended up using more - or less - energy than we had originally anticipated. This, in turn, can result in your account building up debit or credit." That sounds like a statement that would apply to anyone switching supplier, so it would seem that there is a possibility that the info that produced the quote can be superceded by the info from the previous supplier and therefore the payment is more (or less) than the initial quote.

    Finally, the Pure Planet website is claiming that PP is £44 cheaper than Octopus for the same usage right now.

    I'm guessing that this might not be much help to you, but I thought it was worth a try!

    Stephen

    PS Might also be worth noting that as I understand it, if you are coming to an end of a fixed price tariff the comparison sites base their calculations on the assumption that you will be moved to the much higher standard tariff if you don't switch. This results in them quoting you a big saving if you switch when you will in fact be paying more than you are at present.
    Last edited by stephenrand; 13-02-19 at 01:13.
    2
  • Hi there

    I'm a little hesitant to enter into this one! My first thought when I read your initial post was that the most likely explanation was the higher winter direct debit payment. So I was intrigued to read that Octopus also offered a direct debit with different winter and summer payments - they don't seem to now, because I couldn't find any reference to it on their website.

    What I did find on their website was this statement: "When you first join us, we estimate your monthly payment based on information from your quote, and from your previous supplier. We only get access to your previous supplier's data after your switch, due to data protection rules. This means that sometimes, you may have ended up using more - or less - energy than we had originally anticipated. This, in turn, can result in your account building up debit or credit." That sounds like a statement that would apply to anyone switching supplier, so it would seem that there is a possibility that the info that produced the quote can be superceded by the info from the previous supplier and therefore the payment is more (or less) than the initial quote.

    Finally, the Pure Planet website is claiming that PP is £44 cheaper than Octopus for the same usage right now.

    I'm guessing that this might not be much help to you, but I thought it was worth a try!

    Stephen

    PS Might also be worth noting that as I understand it, if you are coming to an end of a fixed price tariff the comparison sites base their calculations on the assumption that you will be moved to the much higher standard tariff if you don't switch. This results in them quoting you a big saving if you switch when you will in fact be paying more than you are at present.


  • hi Llyr
    I haven't seen the screenshot and not wishing to poke this any further, or to have the last word (I'm sure it won't be!) but everything I've seen so far points to the comparison website being correct, Stephenrand 's comparison of course is only valid for the postcode chosen but it's a good indicator.
    The final part of Stephen's post is sort of (I hate that phrase..) irrelevant, because the comparison site is comparing available alternatives, but it might also tell you what you would pay if you did nothing.
    I can only repeat what I said about xxx posts ago, if PP is working out more expensive then there are only 2 explanations,

    1. Your DD is based on more units than your previous supplier
    or
    2. You were on a cheap deal which would at some point have come to an end. (although it isn't clear when but it's certainly not available for new customers now.)

    Without drilling down into the detail which I think is pointless unless you can provide exact details of the tariff you were on, whether it was fixed, when it ended, the no. of units the comparison was based on, the no of units your current PP payment is based on, your area etc, .....
    you've now switched to a cheaper and happy friendly supplier, so to quote the words of the song..don't worry...be happy.

    (I use the MSE cheapenergy website to check and I've found it to be very good.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Hi Woz. When comparing energy suppliers, the only thing I am interested in (and I’d imagine this would be true of most people) is what the cost will be, whether monthly, annual etc. Price per unit - I don’t look at (although I do understand what you’re saying with price per unit not based on usage). The amount of detail you’ve included above is way beyond what I would usually drill into. So when I enter my usage over the last 12 months into a comparison website and it states that I can make a saving (I’ve tried to attach a screenshot but not sure if it’s worked) I expect a saving. What I’ve ended up with is a higher annual cost than what I previously had. This might be a problem withthe comparison website, it might be PP’s problem, dont know really. I’d imagine PP should shoulder some of the blame as they surely provide the comparison sites with their prices? You’re obviously very knowleadgeable in this field (and admit that I’m not) but I’ll again revert back to what I’ve said all along; I was told I would be making a saving of £98 annually when switching to PP from old supplier and I’m not. What I’d suggest you, and other members of this community should do is look into why this annomally has occurred with the comparison website. what I’m going to do is see whether I can switch back to my old supplier without a charge (highly unlikely I’d imagine as I’m past the cooling off period). Seems unlikely that we’re going to get a resolution here but genuine thanks to you and everyone else for trying to sort this, it is appreciated
    0
  • hi Llyr
    I haven't seen the screenshot and not wishing to poke this any further, or to have the last word (I'm sure it won't be!) but everything I've seen so far points to the comparison website being correct, Stephenrand 's comparison of course is only valid for the postcode chosen but it's a good indicator.
    The final part of Stephen's post is sort of (I hate that phrase..) irrelevant, because the comparison site is comparing available alternatives, but it might also tell you what you would pay if you did nothing.
    I can only repeat what I said about xxx posts ago, if PP is working out more expensive then there are only 2 explanations,

    1. Your DD is based on more units than your previous supplier
    or
    2. You were on a cheap deal which would at some point have come to an end. (although it isn't clear when but it's certainly not available for new customers now.)

    Without drilling down into the detail which I think is pointless unless you can provide exact details of the tariff you were on, whether it was fixed, when it ended, the no. of units the comparison was based on, the no of units your current PP payment is based on, your area etc, .....
    you've now switched to a cheaper and happy friendly supplier, so to quote the words of the song..don't worry...be happy.

    (I use the MSE cheapenergy website to check and I've found it to be very good.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyr View Post
    Hi Woz. When comparing energy suppliers, the only thing I am interested in (and I’d imagine this would be true of most people) is what the cost will be, whether monthly, annual etc. Price per unit - I don’t look at (although I do understand what you’re saying with price per unit not based on usage). The amount of detail you’ve included above is way beyond what I would usually drill into. So when I enter my usage over the last 12 months into a comparison website and it states that I can make a saving (I’ve tried to attach a screenshot but not sure if it’s worked) I expect a saving. What I’ve ended up with is a higher annual cost than what I previously had. This might be a problem withthe comparison website, it might be PP’s problem, dont know really. I’d imagine PP should shoulder some of the blame as they surely provide the comparison sites with their prices? You’re obviously very knowleadgeable in this field (and admit that I’m not) but I’ll again revert back to what I’ve said all along; I was told I would be making a saving of £98 annually when switching to PP from old supplier and I’m not. What I’d suggest you, and other members of this community should do is look into why this annomally has occurred with the comparison website. what I’m going to do is see whether I can switch back to my old supplier without a charge (highly unlikely I’d imagine as I’m past the cooling off period). Seems unlikely that we’re going to get a resolution here but genuine thanks to you and everyone else for trying to sort this, it is appreciated