TENS of thousands of struggling energy customers can have their bills wiped and get a host of energy-saving gadgets this winter.

EDF Energy, one of the country’s largest energy firms, will offer fresh support to those facing fuel poverty this winter.

1

The supplier will invest £29 million in a range of initiatives, including debt matching and write offs, as well as providing free energy-saving gadgets.

Debt matching allows struggling customers to get part of their balance wiped.

For instance, if a customer pays £100, EDF Energy will pay off £100, too, effectively wiping half the amount owed and getting them back on track sooner.

British Gas also offers a similar scheme for hard-up customers.

EDF could also write off debts completely on a case-by-case basis.

Other customers could be offered free energy-saving gadgets if they contact the supplier as well.

To get the support you’ll first be referred to one of EDF’s charity partners: Citizens Advice Plymouth, Income Max, and Charis Grants.

Last winter, EDF helped 65,000 customers with support, including debt advice, Income maximisation, energy efficiency advice, debt clearance and financial assistance payments.

Its Warm Winter shop also helped 1,000 customers with electric goods such as kettles, air fryers and slow cookers.

To be eligible, a customer must be fuel poor or at risk of fuel poverty and have known vulnerabilities in the household.

EDF says its team will identify eligible customers and refer them for extra support from Income Max and Plymouth Citizens Advice.

These partner firms will then recommend customers and support them with an application for debt relief.

EDF says that any decision is made based on many factors, including the value of debt, its age, and customers’ repayment behaviour.

Philippe Commaret, managing director of customers at EDF, said: “Whilst the Ofgem price cap has reduced in three of the last four quarters, an October rise of 10% will have a significant impact on those who are already struggling. 

“We are doing all we can to reduce bills, however, to make a real long-term difference, we believe a social tariff is still needed.

“Only through meaningful Government and industry-wide intervention, paired with better data matching, such as a single cross-sector Priority Services Register, will affordability improve for those most in need.”

To find out more about the help, visit edfenergy.com/about/support-for-customers.

What should I do if I fall into debt?

You should contact your supplier as early as possible to let them know if you’re struggling.

Energy debts are priority debts, which means there can be more severe consequences to not paying than with other types of debt.

Failing to engage with your supplier about your debt could also see them apply for a court warrant to forcibly install a prepayment meter in your home.

Once you’ve contacted your supplier about your debt problems, ask for an affordable repayment plan.

Your supplier should work with you to figure out a sensible amount you can pay towards your debts each month.

Your supplier may also allow you to apply for an energy grant.

These could be delivered as energy credits to help cover your debt, or your supplier might agree to wipe your outstanding balance.

Ask your supplier what’s on offer and how to apply.

If your business relies heavily on self-employed advisers, now might be a good time to start looking at alternative business models

The recent news of ex-rugby player Stuart Barnes, who lost an IR35 battle against HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), leaving him with a £700,000 tax bill, made me think about the use of self-employed contracts in the adviser sector.

In response to the story, former financial planner Dave Robinson wrote on LinkedIn:

“Very interesting. I wonder how many self-employed financial adviser contracts would pass the test on this latest interpretation? And how many self-employed advisers are there? Surely, given the state of the public purse, it can’t be long before HMRC starts having a closer look.”

Self-employed advisers have an uphill struggle from the outset

As an employment lawyer working within financial services, the prevalence of self-employed advisers has always made me feel slightly uncomfortable.

It’s a model that is frequently used. Indeed, we regularly draft self-employed adviser agreements, advising on the employment status risks for employment and tax purposes, including IR35.

When looking at the test of employment status, self-employed advisers have an uphill struggle from the outset. There is normally a consultancy agreement in place which requires the adviser to provide services personally to a firm in return for remuneration.

In an industry built on relationships, it’s unlikely a client would accept any old person turning up to give them advice. It’s unlikely a firm would be happy with this arrangement either.

Control is also a problem. In a regulated industry where a firm’s own compliance with its regulatory obligations depends on its workforce complying with the Financial Conduct Authority’s requirements and its own polices and procedures, the “”what, when, where and how” boxes must be ticked.

As an employment lawyer working within financial services, the prevalence of self-employed advisers has always made me feel slightly uncomfortable

So, with mutuality of obligation, personal service and substitution and control out of the window – what next?

Well, it’s not all bad news. The self-employed adviser can normally carry out the work when they like and, because most are pay-away arrangements, there is no set amount of work required or fixed remuneration – you only get paid for work you do.

But despite these factors, it still feels like there could be a bit of a hill to climb.

There remains a question that could push the adviser over the self-employed line – is the self-employed adviser in business on their account?

In many situations, this is the case. Self-employed advisers who have their own book of business bring it to the firm with them and can take it when they leave.

Ownership of clients and a degree of financial risk taken by the self-employed adviser certainly helps with the employment status analysis.

It feels like only a matter of time until HMRC decides to shift its focus away from the world of sport and media to the financial services sector

However, matters aren’t always this straightforward and the firm may need to have some level of client ownership and protection to sufficiently protect its business.

With this in mind, a firm will need to carefully consider and balance the employment status risk against the risk to its business if it doesn’t have post-termination protections in place, such as restrictive covenants, which would protect its confidential information and client relationships if the self-employed adviser were to leave.

All that said, being “in business on your account” didn’t end up helping Barnes, with the Upper Tribunal drilling into other factors such as the right to provide a substitute, exclusivity and lack of financial risk.

It feels like only a matter of time until HMRC decides to shift its focus away from the world of sport and media to the financial services sector. If your business relies heavily on self-employed advisers, now might be a good time to start looking at alternative business models.

Claire Holland is a partner at Foot Anstey 

ASOS has made a major change to its return fees, sparking fury amongst shoppers.

The online retailer will start charging customers when they return items unless they spend a certain amount.

2

2

Advertisement

UK shoppers who frequently return orders will be charged £3.95 unless they keep up to £40 of their order.

The new rule, which has been introduced to crack down on serial returners, comes into effect today, October 8.

Talk of the rule change has upset ASOS shoppers, with some even threatening to boycott the online store.

Commenting on X, formally Twitter, one user wrote: “The problem for large returns is the fact half of your stock is ill-fitting and poor quality.

“You’re another brand now alienating your loyal customers.”

“Well ASOS if you actually made clothes that fit so I wouldn’t need to buy multiple sizes we wouldn’t have that problem, consider me no longer a customer,” posted another.

While another wrote; “Did you [ASOS] consider that returner fee isolates customers who don’t fit ideal body standards?

“As a curvy girl, I have to order several sizes and often make returns as your sizing is not consistent, now I’m going to be charged for it? Way to make me feel bad about my body.”

ASOS previously said that a “small number of shoppers” will be charged but has not elaborated on the exact number of shoppers affected.

Those hit by the change will need to keep £40 worth of goods to avoid the new charge.

Shoppers who already pay £9.95 a year for Asos Premier to get perks like free next-day delivery will not be exempt from the extra fee – but will have to keep a lower value of items.

For Premier customers affected, that will be £15.

Craig Smith, UK country manager at Scayle, an e-commerce platform, said the move could risk damaging customer loyalty.

He said: “Retailers like ASOS have tried to tackle the problem of returns by asking customers to foot the bill – but this is far from a silver bullet.

“Firstly, brands risk damaging customer loyalty by alienating customers who are reluctant to fork out a fee. “

It’s just the latest of many retailers to start charging for returns.

Here’s a full list of all the other retailers now charging customers to make returns.

Pretty Little Thing

PrettyLittleThing (PLT) started charging all customers for returns in June.

The fashion brand, owned by Boohoo, introduced a £1.99 fee on June 3.

The charge is deducted from a shopper’s full refund amount.

PrettyLittleThing fans who are members of its PLT Royalty programme can’t avoid the charge either.

PLT Royalty costs £9.99 a year and gives members free unlimited delivery on all items.

River Island

In February, River Island angered customers by introducing a £2 charge to return items ordered online.

The charge will be deducted from the total amount refunded after the customer has posted back the items.

River Island says items must be returned within 28 days of delivery and should be clean, unworn and with tags still attached. 

Angry customers have railed against the change and even vowed to stop shopping there.

H&M

H&M brought in a £1.99 fee in September last year.

The huge Swedish-owned retailer updated its policy on its website.

Shoppers returning parcels bought online via courier are now charged, with the cost coming out of their refund.

Those who are H&M members, which is free to sign up for, still get to return their hauls for free, though.

On the H&M website, it says: “There is a £1.99 return fee per return parcel to store or online for non-members, which will be deducted from your refund.”

However, it says that shoppers won’t be charged the fee if the item they’re bringing back is faulty or incorrect.

Boohoo

Boohoo also introduced a £1.99 charge for returns after previously offering them for free.

The large online retailer updated its policy on its website.

It states: “Please note a returns charge of £1.99 per parcel will be deducted from your refund amount.

“Returns are FREE for premier customers.”

A Boohoo spokesperson at the time said the change was due to the increase in the cost of shipping.

They added the decision was made so the company can “continue to offer great prices and products and do this in a more sustainable way”.

Boohoo’s policy also applies to shoppers who use gift cards, store credit, or vouchers.

Boohoo’s website states: “If you paid for your order with a gift card, store credit or a voucher, a replacement to the value of the refund will be issued minus the cost of £1.99 for returning the item to us.”

Zara

In May 2022, high-street retailer Zara started charging customers £1.95 for returns.

Shoppers are being charged £1.95 to send back items, with the fee deducted from their refund.

However, customers can still return items purchased online to a Zara store free of charge, as long as they have the matching e-receipt and it’s within 30 days from the date of shipment.

A spokesperson for Zara said previously: “Customers can return online purchases at any Zara store in the UK free of charge, which is what most customers choose to do.

“The £1.95 fee only applies to the return of products at third-party drop-off points.”

New Look

Back in 2023, New Look announced it was trialling a £1.99 return fee for online orders to offset any possible price rises.

The fee applies to postal returns only, with in-store returns for online orders continuing to be free.

In a statement at the time, a New Look spokesperson said: “New Look has taken the decision to trial a £1.99 fee for postal returns.

“This is in line with the wider industry and reflects increased costs related to delivery and collection. Customers are still able to return their online orders to our stores free of charge.”

Debenhams

In December 2023, Debenhams left shoppers feeling “cheated” after introducing a charge for returning online goods.

The new £1.99 fee came amid fears shoppers have been abusing free returns by ordering items, wearing them briefly and then sending them back.

The Debenhams website now says shoppers must pay £1.99 for every parcel returned.

Angry shoppers moaned on social media, with one saying: “Since when did Debenhams charge for returns?

“Should’ve been clear before placing an order #debenhams.”

Customers with Unlimited membership – which costs £9.50 a year -can make unlimited returns and deliveries with no additional charges.

Next

Next introduced the change at the start of 2023 and customers now have to fork out £2.50 per item returned.

Customers can save money on deliveries and returns by opting for an annual subscription, which costs £22.50 a year.

You can return any items to one of the retailer’s more than 450 stores without charge.

Previously, you could also get courier returns included for free as well, but the retailer has now ditched them.

It comes after a poll revealed that cash-strapped consumers are taking their money elsewhere in response to retailers slashing their free returns policies.

And this iconic high street retailer has angered customers by introducing a £2 charge to return items ordered online.

Don’t want full access? REGISTER NOW for limited access and to subscribe to our newsletters.

New chancellor Rachel Reeves is “wrapping herself in a straight jacket” as she tries to balance reassuring the public with reassuring the market ahead of the 30 October Budget, political journalist and broadcaster Nick Watt has warned.

During his keynote speech at Money Marketing Interactive in London today (8 October), Watt said Reeves is faced with a conundrum: How does she rebuild the public realm while maintaining her reputation for fiscal prudence as she tackles the £22bn black hole she identified at the end of July?

He said that, on the one hand, the chancellor is reassuring voters by ruling out any increases in the three big revenue raises of income tax, VAT and National Insurance.

At the same time, she is reassuring the market by showing what she describes as “ironclad fiscal discipline”.

“Firstly, she aims to ensure no borrowing for day-to-day spending in the long run. Secondly, she plans to reduce debt as a share of GDP between the fourth and fifth years of the forecast,” Watt added.

“This commitment restricts her ability to borrow for investment, and if she sticks to this approach, she will need to cut spending in unprotected areas to maintain spending in protected areas like the NHS.”

He said Reeves is “clear in her desire” to rebuild the public sector “without reckless spending”.

“This raises the question of what she will do in the Budget with such tight restrictions. It appears there are two major tax proposals the government is focusing on.

“The first is clamping down on non-domiciled individuals, and the second involves removing the business rate exemption for private schools.

“However, there are now doubts about how quickly these will be implemented.”

Watt said that if there are uncertainties about these two proposals, which are expected to raise several billion pounds, this “raises the question” of what else the chancellor might consider to generate revenue.

“Options could include raising the rate of capital gains tax, altering pension rules or increasing inheritance tax,” he said.

“A key issue drawing attention is whether she will find a way to ease the fiscal rules.”

Watt suggested one option for doing this could involve counting Bank of England debt differently by excluding losses from asset sales and policy banks.

Another suggestion, from the IPPR – a think tank favoured by Number 10, is to target public sector net worth as the debt measure.

“This approach could unlock £57bn of investment,” Watt added. “That approach means that you take account the value of public assets, like roads, schools and hospitals.”

But, he warned, this is “difficult to define”.