Energy firm with 800,000 customers must give £277k compensation to customers after huge payment fail

THOUSANDS of customers of a major energy supplier will receive compensation after an investigation by the industry regulator.
Energy firm Utilita will pay around £277,000 in compensation after it failed to pay its Warm Home Discount payments on time.
1
The regulator found that the firm failed to pass on the mandatory discount to more than 4,000 customers within the required timeframe because of an internal error in processing payments.
The Warm Home Discount is a one-off annual £150 discount of electricity bills to households on certain benefits or those on a low income with high energy costs.
The automatic payment is usually paid by March 31.
But thousands of the customers did not receive it on time this year.
In recognition of the impact the delayed payments could have had on its customers, many of whom are vulnerable, Utilita has agreed to pay £247,000 of compensation to those affected.
Customers will receive a further payment of up to £150 each.
The money will be paid in addition to £30,000 of compensation Utilita paid to affected customers shortly after the issue was identified.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

10 minutes ago

• The Independent

Hundreds of jobs at risk as River Island plans store closures

Hundreds of jobs are at risk at River Island as part of plans to shut 33 of its UK stores. The retailer has unveiled a radical restructuring plan in a bid to reverse recent heavy losses due to a slump in trading. Bosses blamed the closures on the 'migration of shoppers from the high street to online' and higher costs to run stores. The family-owned retailer confirmed it is proposing to close 33 of its 230 stores by January next year as a result. A further 71 stores are also at risk depending on talks with landlords in order to secure improved rental deals. The retailer, which employs around 5,500 people, was founded in 1948 under the Lewis and Chelsea Girl brand before being renamed in the 1980s. It has reportedly hired advisers from PwC in order to oversee the restructuring process. The proposals are set to go to a vote by the firm's creditors – companies or individuals owed money by the retailer – in August. The deal will result in fresh funding being invested into the business in order to help fuel its turnaround. Ben Lewis, chief executive of River Island, said: 'River Island is a much-loved retailer, with a decades-long history on the British high street. 'However, the well-documented migration of shoppers from the high street to online has left the business with a large portfolio of stores that is no longer aligned to our customers' needs. 'The sharp rise in the cost of doing business over the last few years has only added to the financial burden. 'We have a clear strategy to transform the business to ensure its long-term viability. 'Recent improvements in our fashion offer and in-store shopping experience are already showing very positive results, but it is only with a restructuring plan that we will be able to see this strategy through and secure River Island's future as a profitable retail business. 'We regret any job losses as a result of store closures, and we will try to keep these to a minimum.' The retailer is among high street fashion chains to have been impacted by weaker consumer spending and competition from cheaper online rivals, such as Shein. River Island fell to a £33.2 million loss in 2023 after sales slid by 19%, according to its most recent set of accounts.

Telegraph

11 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Inheritance tax is heinous, but avoiding it could be a bigger disaster

They say nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, but I propose to add a third to the list: investors doing everything imaginable to avoid taxes. The bigger the bite HMRC wants, the heavier the hustle to shield hard-earned assets. Thanks to Labour dragging pensions into the inheritance tax net, it is now a stampede. Yet the avoidance path conceals huge pits I've watched investors fall into throughout my 50 years managing money. Estate planning is wonderful, but too often, sensible planning leads to tax considerations dictating investment decisions. This raises risk, reduces returns and can hit your planned inheritance much harder than any tax rise. Consider popular ways people now seek to shield pensions from inheritance tax: investing in Aim shares is one, with the double benefit of stamp duty exemption and business property relief. Enterprise Investing Schemes (EIS) are another, and business property relief schemes letting you access unlisted companies is a third. All these sprang from past governments' investment incentives, hoping to spur entrepreneurship and startups. A fine aim. But pursuing a strategy aimed at these incentives solely for tax benefits aren't the sunlit uplands some promise. You don't need me to tell you Aim has a long history of scandals and failures alongside those select success stories that graduated to the main market. Or that its stocks are Britain's tiniest, with a median market capitalisation of £15m. Or that FTSE's Aim All Share is down nearly -30pc since 2000, while the FTSE All Share has soared over 275pc. Astronomical missed returns are a dear price to pay for tax relief, particularly one whose relief is rapidly diminishing – Aim stocks' BPR relief drops from 100pc to 50pc next year. EIS and BPR schemes carry another risk: overloading on unlisted companies. These sport the veneer of stability and, in EIS's case, supposedly high growth potential. They are billed as a way for normal folks to invest in venture capital and reap big rewards when a startup hits it big, but the reality is those are needles in a haystack of hard-to-value, illiquid investments. Winners aren't guaranteed – untraded doesn't mean stable. It just means fewer pricing points, hiding the inherent behind-the-scenes volatility. That is illiquidity – a bug, not a feature. You risk being unable to sell when you really need to without suffering a steep discount. Aim companies aren't categorically horrid. Some are fine, even great. EIS and BPR can also be fine tools, in certain situations. But it all depends on your broader goals and time horizon, which gets us to the root of the problem. Your fixation on tax steers you away from why you invested in the first place. Done right, long-term investing is about picking the correct asset allocation – the blend of stocks, bonds and other securities – for reaching your goals over your investment time horizon. Your goals are the primary purpose for your money, usually growth, cash flow or some combination of the two. Your time horizon is how long your money must last, usually your lifetime – clearly longer if inheritance tax is a concern. Throughout history, stocks and bonds have done a marvellous job of delivering the growth and cash flow people need, given a sufficiently long-term horizon and reasonable withdrawals. Stocks deliver abundant long-term growth, despite bear markets and volatility along the way, while bonds cushion expected short-term volatility and support cash flow with interest. British and global listed stocks and bonds are liquid – easy to sell in a pinch to cover expenses both expected and sudden. When tax avoidance takes supremacy, will you let it steer you from whichever liquid asset allocation aligned with your goals and needs? If your pension is loaded with Aim shares, EIS or BPR schemes to reduce inheritance tax, it risks not delivering the returns needed to support your cash flow later on. Aged poverty is a real pain. Or maybe your pension ends up worth vastly less for your heirs, after tax, than if you had opted for a simple blend of stocks and bonds. If you have a sudden expense, your pension may not be liquid enough to cover it. Then what do you do? Borrow? Don't forget, tax policy is a whack-a-mole game. Pensions were exempt from inheritance tax until they weren't. After halving Aim relief in 2024's Budget, Labour capped BPR last year. Some ministers floated scrapping Aim relief altogether. What then? If you focus on tax optimisation, you may find yourself needing to make big changes again. And again. And again. Changes cost money. Taxes are certain in general, but the specifics are shape-shifting. When your goals and time horizon determine your strategy, there are fewer moving parts. You can build a diversified strategy with a long history of delivering what you need, while taking sensible steps to reduce tax exposure where available. Tax avoidance is nice. Liquidity, predictability and reaching your goals? Nicer.

Daily Mail​

25 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

British tourists face price hikes for holidays to Europe under planned EU travel policy

Holidays to Europe will cost more if EU proposals to increase its planned entry fee go ahead. Currently, plans are for holidaymakers from outside the bloc to pay €7 (£5.98) for an online permit when entering as part of the Etias scheme. The system is due to be rolled out from next year, following the introduction of the Entry/Exit System, which will eventually require biometric data to be provided at the border. But the European Union is considering raising the price to help with repayments on a €350 billion (£299 billion) debt used to fund the post-Covid recovery, according to Politico. Etias, which stands for European Travel Information and Authorisation System, is emerging as one of the most popular tax options ahead of budget proposals next month, the publication said. This would be a further blow to Brits, who already face longer queues and more red tape since Brexit. 'A possible adjustment of the fee' is being considered, a European Commission spokesperson told Politico. And a note seen by the website saw the Polish rotating Council presidency write: 'It seems that there is a possibility of a gradual increase of the fee, strengthening the long-term revenue potential.' The Mail has contacted the European Commission for comment. The proposed €7 fee is cheaper than the £16 charged to apply for the UK's version, the Electronic Travel Authorisation, or the $21 (£15.60) price of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization used by the US. The news comes at a time of softening of relations between the UK and EU, with hopes that tourists will face easier experiences at passport control and suffer less bureaucracy on the continent. British tourists have begun using e-gates at Faro Airport after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed an agreement with EU leaders last month. However, they are still facing queues of nearly half an hour. Mark Francois, Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford as well as chairman of the European Research Group of Tory Brexiteers, is unhappy with any potential price rise for the Etias. 'This just adds insult to injury over the Government's so-called Brexit reset,' he told GB News. 'Not only has it become apparent that promises of British tourists being fast-tracked through e-gates in EU countries were largely illusory, even when they do get through immigration, they will now pay extra for the privilege.'