In a landscape rife with sensationalism, the Energy Consultants Association (ECA) takes a stand to unravel the truth behind Octopus Energy’s recent report, which once again casts a shadow on the energy consultancy sector.

The ECA, as a staunch advocate for the energy consulting community, is poised to dissect the assertions made and shed light on the nuanced reality.

• Octopus Energy represents just around 1% of business contracts, drawing conclusions from their market-size referenced data. This, however, falls short of providing them with a comprehensive view of how the non-domestic market operates.
• Octopus Energy asserts that they do not collaborate with brokers. Yet, this isn’t correct; we can identify at least two brokers that historically, have been in collaboration with Octopus.
• Primarily acting as a direct seller, Octopus seeks to redirect customers away from direct channels, making brokers potential barriers. This perspective indicates a motive to scrutinise brokers’ activities rather than maintaining impartiality.
• The conducted “survey” remains proprietary, with the ECA assuming that Octopus has determined the criteria. A call for transparency arises, urging Octopus to reveal the search criteria and specific questions posed. Manipulation risks are real when questions are selectively framed.
• An extrapolation that every UK business, which includes over 2 million business meters, encounters broker-related issues is implausible and lacks credibility.

• The sensationalist and misleading use of a 5p uplift example stands out. However, this stark uplift contrasts our experience, where the average uplift is closer to 1p. The 5p reference seems designed to mislead, sensationalise issues, is factually incorrect and infringes ASA rules.
• The decision of numerous ECA members to abstain from engaging with Octopus is notable due to their uncompetitive prices and limited product offerings. Additionally, Octopus’s reluctance to onboard new customers for extended periods stands as a relevant concern.
• A review yesterday of current Octopus pricing shows that a customer(1) would be almost £400 a year (5% annual energy saving) better off by avoiding Octopus and choosing the cheapest supplier. Brokers provide such insights to help customers select competitive suppliers.
• Fee disclosure has been essentially mandatory for micro-businesses for some time now from all major suppliers in light of the Ofgem Micro business licence condition changes. The call for its introduction suggests a lack of awareness, similar to the request for caps. To our knowledge, uplift caps are already implemented by all suppliers.
• Octopus’s complaints (2) have surged by over 250% from Q1 2021 to Q1 2023. This points to the potential pitfalls of relying on limited reported data to shape a narrative.
• Notably, Octopus Energy faced a £750,000 fine earlier this year due to billing issues affecting over 19,000 UK companies. This historical context adds depth to the discussion surrounding their claims.

The Octopus report contains factually incorrect information, is primarily driven to generate PR to drive their own commercial direct channel model, and lacks credibility.

Suppliers like Octopus need to focus more on providing better prices for customers, reduce billing issues, lower deemed rates and help support switching ates – not try to drive PR to reduce them.

While the rhetoric of Octopus Energy’s report may grab headlines, The Energy Consultants Association (ECA) asserts its dedication to unbiased accuracy and ethical discourse.

Our advocacy for energy consultants and intermediaries is grounded in a commitment to professionalism, impartiality, and a well-rounded perspective.

The ECA’s unwavering commitment to fostering an equitable representation of the industry reflects our ongoing efforts to ensure that energy consultants’ essential contributions are acknowledged, respected, and accurately communicated.

Amidst the noise of misrepresentation, the ECA remains steadfast in its pursuit of a credible and collaborative energy landscape.

Reference 1 – Customer quoted using third party pricing platform on 17^th August using 35,000 KWh annualised was £400 a year more expensive than the cheapest supplier

Reference 2 – Statista report https://www.statista.com/statistics/429551/big-six-complaints-received-per-100000-customers-uk/#:~:text=British%20utility%20company%20British%20Gas,Great%20Britain%20at%20the%20time.