[wraymond]

They are intended to remove the element of consumer challenge arsing from disputed charges/readings. There are occasional increases mid-term which lead to protracted disputes which the suppliers automatically see as suspected fraud.

The system allows the supplier to independently switch the meter off in the cases of dispute until a satisfactory result is obtained, in their favour, without need for judicial verdict. Obviously, the consumer then has no energy supplied so pays up without delay.

Increased charges can be levied instantly without expense to the supplier making the business far more profitable and there is no need to employ meter readers. These and other considerable savings are entirely in the suppliers interest and confer no benefit to the consumer and are totally beyond the consumer's input. There's plenty more , but it's moot and pointless. There is no upside to the customer, no advantage, no gain or control. When market penetration is at the required level it will be too late to object.

Mainly though, the absence of a 'deal' with a term allows the supplier to avoid being limited to contract dates to impose real or opportunistic charges without reference to any market imperatives. Surprise, surprise. No doubt this will come as a disappointment. Of course, all this might not be true but I am quite happy to be taking bets.