Is this an example of a well-intentioned scheme backfiring, or of an ill-intentioned plan doing exactly what it’s supposed to?

In response to a backlash after it was discovered that employees of some energy suppliers, including British Gas, had been breaking into the homes of people who had been defaulting on their bill payments to forcibly install pre-payment meters, the regulator Ofgem has imposed new rules.

Energy firms have agreed to the voluntary code. It includes a ban on forcibly installing prepayment meters in the homes of people over the age of 85.

Companies will only be able to force the change if they stick to a set of voluntary restrictions and must make at least 10 attempts to contact a customer.

They must also carry out a site welfare visit before a such a meter can be installed and will need to avoid forced installations where a “continuous supply” of energy is needed for health reasons, such as for the terminally ill.

Energy firms will also be required to make representatives fitting meters wear body cameras or audio equipment.

But some have warned that the new rules aren’t good enough:

It seems Ofgem has not taken account of the fact that 29 per cent of households are now in debt to their energy supplier.

Critics say the regulator had an opportunity to introduce targeted debt relief for those who are most in need of it – but didn’t.

Nor has Ofgem considered the energy needs of people with disabilities or health conditions in its definition of the kind of vulnerability that would make a bill-payer exempt from having a pre-payment meter in any circumstances, it seems.

There is also the question of how people will prove their medical conditions without being humiliated by an energy firm health inspection.

Ofgem has said it will consult on whether the new code of practice can be made legally binding before the winter.

Labour seems to be in two minds about the situation. According to the Morning Star article mentioned above, Ed Miliband said Ofgem’s scheme was “not good enough”.

But Jonathan Ashworth seemed to have a different opinion:

Worse than that, the changes may mean energy bills increase – to cover their own cost:

How can that be, in any way, fair?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: