Nintendo Switch review: Portable power and versatile design let down by expensive accessories and…
SSE fined for misselling
Like to think I did my bit towards this.
A couple of years ago I was in bed one afternoon when the door bell went.
Stuck my head out of the landing window and asked what it was about. Guy told me there was a problem with my power supply.
Got my dressing gown on and struggled downstairs slowly (we are both disabled and have a notice on the door saying so, we also have a ramp, and a wheelchair stored in the porch).
Chap said he was from Scottish Hydro (part of SSE) and their equipment had identified a problem with our power supplies.
I expressed surprise, and said that Scottish Hydro did not supply our power.
He said he knew that, and we were paying too much and they could supply it cheaper.
It was only then I caught on!
I was furious and declined his offer somewhat forcefully!
Complained to the company and received a very self justifying reply, so complained to Ofgem.
£10.5m? Add another zero.
It's the same feeling every time I see either this company or some one else that's fined, at some point I will pay that.
Why don't they order the company to reduce costs for say 12 months then they get fined but we don't pay, is that so hard to do and we the customer win.
I thought this was a thread about British rail regions...
I stopped counting the number of 'cold callers' who said they could save me money on fuel bills and then couldn't answer my simple questions "How much per kWh am I paying now (to present supplier)? and how much per kWh do you charge?"
They were all at it, and some have already been fined.
The water company we have always used, was fined a few years ago. Part of the deal was that the customers would get a refund. We got our refund off the following years bill, all £2.00 of it. I cannot really moan though, because I still think that water company is one of the cheapest around.
Now the dual fuel supplier who supplies us, as had many a complaint letter from me, but it doesn't make the slightest difference. We keep paying, they keep taking, but we are assured that they have the customer's interest at heart.
The should hit them where it hurts, stop the shareholders dividend for the year. Maybe give it to a charity that would infuriate the shareholders, like the labour party. ;-)
passing through My pension is probably one of the shareholders. So I lose could twice, once as a customer and gel a lower pension.... boo hoo
My private pension didn't see an increase for three years, but this years there as been a slight increase in payment.
Looks like I might have lost three years running :O)
All I need to do now, is see if the tax collector isn't watching :O(
"The should hit them where it hurts, stop the shareholders dividend for the year."
Thus penalising the people who have invested their money in the company - many of whom are its customers. It would lead to a lack of confidence, which in turn leads to share dumping, and simply makes matters worse.
It would also be illegal under current legislation.
With respect, but how is it illegal to withhold paying dividends to shareholders.
Taking in mind perhaps, that most large shareholders are large commercial enterprises themselves, who main aim in life is making profit, and the more the merrier.
If we are talking about the small shareholder, possibly investing for a pension, then their say in most large companies have very little sway. There as even been formations of associations or protest groups of the smaller shareholders, and on the whole these people might make a scene or media report, and very little else.
Off subject, but when I didn't receive a private pension increase over the past three years, the runners of the fund still retained their rights to increasing their administration costs. When I consulted them about this, the excuse appeared was one "that some bad investments had been made". As I said, off subject, but perhaps interesting news?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.