Talking energy

Executive Summary

Foreword

At a time when consumers are facing staggeringly high energy bills, it is more important than ever that customers are able to understand what they are being asked to pay and why, so that they can work out how to balance their budgets and have confidence their bills are accurate.

However, Which? research in August 2022 revealed that energy bills are causing significant confusion, with two in five UK adults identifying areas of an example energy bill they found confusing [1]. This lack of clarity is giving customers cause to get in touch with their provider to seek clarification or help – in our 2022 energy customer survey, 13% of customers had got in touch with their provider most recently because of a query over a bill, direct debit or credit balance they had received [2], adding to the burden on energy companies’ already overstretched customer services and making it more difficult for customers to get the support they need.

Our new research published in this paper compares a mock ‘control’ energy communication, based on current energy company communications, with an improved mock ‘test’ energy communication, which incorporates key features such as simple language and explaining the full reasons for any direct debit change. To do this we undertook an experiment with a nationally representative sample of over 2,000 UK adults to explore the emotional and reputational impact of the unclear communications energy providers are currently using, and to identify simple steps that suppliers can take to make their communications clearer. 

Our key findings were as follows:

• Almost half of consumers feel stressed (47%) and anxious (49%) when they are faced with their energy bills. This impact is worsened when communications are unclear – 7 in 10 consumers who found their communications difficult to understand reported finding their energy bills stressful, compared to just 4 in 10 who found their communications easy to understand. 
• Clarity of communications heavily impacts consumer trust. Three-quarters of consumers (74%) who found their bills unclear reported that they didn’t trust their energy provider, compared to just 30% of those who found their bills clear. 
• Presenting information in a clear way by using our suggested features improved consumers’ understanding of key information from the bill. These features aim to improve the language, formatting and overall readability of communications. Of those who were shown the test communication including our features, almost half (45%) answered the comprehension questions correctly, compared to 27% of those who saw the control communication without our features [3]. 
• Currently, not all providers are communicating in simple language and full sentences – but we found that these changes would be most impactful, with 7 in 10 consumers (72%) saying this helped improve their understanding.
• Simply explaining how direct debits work and being clear why changes are needed makes consumers significantly more likely to understand and accept direct debit changes. Two-thirds (65%) of those who saw the test communication with our simple direct debit explanation completely understood why a change to the payment amount was needed, compared to 48% of those who saw the control communication. Consumers who did not receive any explanation were also significantly more likely to challenge the change. 38% said they would challenge it compared to 28% of those who received our test explanation.

Recommendations: 

While providers are currently communicating in different ways, with some providing information more clearly than others, it is clear that there is room for improvement across the industry. We are therefore calling on providers to make changes to their communications about billing and direct debits to incorporate the following elements wherever possible: 

1. Use simple language and full sentences to explain what the costs mean. Explanatory text in simple language and full sentences should be used to explain what the numbers indicate, rather than using numbers with little or no accompanying text. Technical language such as ‘credit’ and ‘debit’ should be avoided where possible, or clearly explained.
2. Explain why a direct debit change is needed (where relevant). This includes two parts:
   • Include a simple explanation of how direct debits work. A short explanation of how direct debits spread payments evenly across the year, including the function of credit balances, should be included.
   • Fully explain the reason(s) why any change to the direct debit payment amount is needed. Should changes to the payment amount be needed, communications should clearly set out the background reason(s) why the current amount is not sufficient – for example due to a price increase, or because energy usage is predicted to increase. This should go beyond simply stating that the current amount will not be enough to cover the predicted costs, to also explain the reason(s) why. 
3. Include a personalised graph. A tailored visual representation can help to aid the comprehension of information. For example, a personalised graph to demonstrate a customer’s individual predicted costs can help to explain why a direct debit amount needs to change. 
4. Clearly state what action, if any, is required from the customer. Communications should clearly tell consumers what they need to do – or it should be made clear that they don’t need to do anything.
5. Consider readability when making decisions about formatting, font and structure, making sure that key information is clearly signposted. Consumers in our experiment found that the emboldening of key information, providing a summary of essential information upfront (without including a lot of additional information) and using an easy-to-read font helped to make the communication more easily comprehensible. Providers should consider these and other ways to make it easy for customers to identify the key takeaway information. 

Einführung

Over the last 18 months, energy bills have risen to unprecedented levels. Although prices are expected to fall in the second half of 2023, they are still predicted to remain much higher than historic rates for the foreseeable future.

Figure 1: Predicted price cap for the second half of 2023 remains at a high level compared to 2021 levels

This has led to a staggering rise in fuel poverty across the UK, from approximately 4 million UK households in October 2021 [7] to 6.7 million in February 2023 [8]. Unsurprisingly, as shown in Figure 2, Which? data shows that 91% of consumers across the UK population are worried about energy prices.

Figure 2: Consumers are unsurprisingly worried about the price of energy

In this context, it is more important than ever that consumers are able to understand their energy bills, what they’re being asked to pay, and why, so that they can work out how to balance their budgets and have confidence their bills are accurate. However, Which? research has found that consumers are often struggling to decipher the communications they receive from their energy company, and identified room for improvement.

Our nationally representative survey of UK consumers in August 2022 highlighted that energy bills are causing significant confusion, with two in five UK adults identifying areas of an example energy bill they found confusing [9]. It also revealed that technical language was a particular barrier for customers who were confused by the use of terms such as ‘kilowatts per hour (kWh)’ and ‘credit’, as well as electricity usage calculations. This sentiment was also evident among members of our Consumer Insight panel [10] who emphasised the challenge of translating the meaning of their energy bills:

“The energy bills…, just generally they are a nightmare. Like the kilowatts per hour, whatever they're measuring, it’s just like, “Wow, oh my God, where do they come up with all this stuff?” So yes, I find it a nightmare.” 

"Credit wording is confusing. How can a direct debit be a credit?"

Currently, energy companies have to follow regulations set by Ofgem which require certain information to be provided in energy bills and other communications, and state that companies must communicate in a language that consumers can understand, with the most important information being given prominence [11]. However, as our survey evidence and Ofgem’s own data attests [12], these regulations are not sufficient to avoid consumer confusion. A Which? review of recent provider communications found examples of poor practice including the use of unexplained acronyms and direct debit amounts being raised without a full explanation being provided to the consumer.

Our annual energy survey suggests that this confusion is forcing consumers to take time out of their lives to contact their providers for clarification. 13% of customers had got in touch with their provider most recently because of a query over a bill, direct debit or credit balance they had received [13]. This is likely to be adding to the significant pressure that suppliers’ customer services are currently under, with some suppliers reporting that call numbers have increased by 300%, making it more difficult for customers to get the support they need [14]. Customers who aren’t able to understand their energy bills could also be at greater risk of disengaging from their bills, being unaware of what they are being asked to pay, and ultimately mismanaging their finances.

Based on this evidence, we were concerned that energy communications were causing consumer harm – making it more difficult for consumers to take control of their energy spending, generating time-consuming customer service queries, and increasing the risk of financial difficulties. In response, we conducted this new research to investigate the full impact of this consumer harm, to help providers better understand the impact of unclear communications, and to identify improvements that would help improve consumer understanding of energy bills. The changes we have identified are expected to empower customers to better understand their energy bills, reducing the burden on customer services and fostering greater trust amongst customers in their energy company.

This Report

This report presents the findings of a survey of 2,082 UK adults, carried out by Yonder Consulting on behalf of Which? in January 2023 in order to gain an understanding of consumers’ current experiences of communications from their energy providers and to test possible improvements [15].

Firstly, we asked respondents about the levels of stress and anxiety they experience when engaging with energy bills, and explored how this affects consumer trust in energy providers and demand for customer service. These findings are set out in Chapter 1.

Secondly, we tested possible improvements that could be made to energy communications and their impact on customer comprehension, using a series of experiments which allowed us to compare different variations of energy bill communications. The findings from these experiments are presented in Chapter 2. 

Finally, Chapter 3 sets out Which?’s recommendations for energy providers using evidence from this research. 

Further methodological details are provided in Annex 2 (download with the main report).

Chapter 1: The Impact of unclear communications 

Energy bills a source of confusion for consumers

Existing evidence [16] tells us that consumer confusion about energy bills is widespread. However, while we know from our 2022 annual customer survey [17] that this confusion is having some impact on volumes of customer contacts, and can draw on anecdotal evidence that unclear communications are increasing consumer anxiety and undermining trust in energy providers [18], the full extent of this problem and its impact on both consumers and on providers has so far not been clear. Without clear evidence of these effects, the case for change isn’t clear. To address this gap, in this chapter, we draw on our new survey of 2,082 nationally representative UK consumers, to explore how confusing energy communications are affecting consumers as well as energy providers. 

Bills are a source of stress and anxiety 

Most of us have found bills worrying in recent months as the cost of energy has soared [19], so it is unsurprising that we found that one in two consumers experience a negative emotional response when reading their energy bills – 47% of consumers said they find this stressful and 49% said this makes them feel anxious, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 3: Consumers experience stress and anxiety when looking at their energy bills

Poor communication increases stress and anxiety

The dramatic increase in energy costs was always likely to be stressful, but our research shows that unclear communications can exacerbate this. Of the consumers who found the messages from their provider easy to understand, 4 in 10 (41%) reported finding their energy bills stressful. Yet this almost doubled to 7 in 10 (70%) for those who said their energy communications were difficult to understand. Our survey also demonstrates the worrying extent of this problem, with over three-quarters (76%) of consumers reporting that they find their energy bills confusing [20].

This suggests that a large number of consumers are seeing negative impacts on their mental wellbeing as a result of poor provider communication, and could be at a higher risk of mispayments and even financial difficulty. A particular concern is that people who find engaging with energy bills stressful may engage in ‘ostriching’ behaviour [21], undermining active financial management and risking the accrual of significant arrears, potentially leading to hardship. 

Trust drops when communication is difficult to understand

Trust can be an important measure of how companies are perceived by their customers. Worryingly, previous Which? research found that nearly half of customers did not trust the energy sector to act in their best interests [22]. We have also found evidence of this distrust amongst our Which? Cost of Living Panel [23] -  one member had the following response when their provider instructed them to increase their direct debit payments:

“What I see from the news is [energy companies] make plenty of money and can afford to reduce bills.”

Our new research explores the impact that the clarity of communications has on consumer trust in the energy sector, and finds that trust is heavily dictated by how easy consumers felt it was to understand their provider’s communication. Three-quarters of consumers (74%) who found their bills unclear reported that they didn’t trust their energy provider, compared to just 30% of those who find their bills clear. This suggests that some energy providers are not presenting their messages clearly enough to customers and may be damaging their reputations as a result.

Figure 4: Consumers receiving unclear communications have higher distrust in energy providers 

Unclear communication adds to the strain on customer services

Our new research also set out to add to the evidence base on the impact of unclear communications on customer service contacts. This is a particularly important issue at a time when customer services are already under increasing pressure as a result of the cost of living crisis. Call waiting times have increased [24], and Which?’s annual customer survey of energy providers found that the average customer satisfaction score had fallen for the third consecutive year [25]. Ofgem’s recent investigation into customer service also identified several areas where companies needed to make improvements, including long call waiting times, high call drop rates, and weaknesses in complaint processes [26].

Our research tested whether unclear communications increase the likelihood that consumers need to get in touch with their providers. Here we focused on communications around direct debit changes, as many consumers have experienced these in recent months. We found that of those who have received a direct debit change communication in the last 12 months, 26% would dispute the change by contacting their provider. This increased to 35% for those who said their energy provider communications were unclear. 

If providers do not clearly explain the rationale behind a payment increase, the consumer could be more likely to query it with their provider, again adding to the burden on customer services. They may also question whether the provider is acting in their best interest, further damaging trust, and at worst could reject the change by switching to a different (and likely more expensive) payment method.

Chapter 2: A clear way through stress and distrust

Clear communications a way to support consumers

Our research has established that unclear energy communications can increase customer stress and anxiety, decrease trust in providers, and add to the pressure on their customer services by increasing the volume of queries. 

Therefore, our recommended approach is for providers to take action to improve the clarity of communications with customers. By doing so, providers could lower the stress and anxiety customers experience when reading their energy bills. This could also improve customer trust and reduce calls to customer services.

In this chapter, we explore the individual and cumulative impact of specific changes that providers can make to their energy communications via our new research comparing a mock ‘control’ energy communication, based on current energy company communications, with an improved mock ‘test’ energy communication, which incorporates key features such as simple language and explaining the full reasons for any direct debit change, in compliance with Ofgem’s requirements on bills and communications. 

What we tested

To identify the improvements that could be made to energy communications, we drew on previous research conducted by Plain Numbers [27] to identify a number of key test features. We also consulted with a number of the largest energy companies as part of the development process. We then tested these improvements with consumers to assess their impact on comprehension.

The key improvements that we tested were: 

1. Simple language – using simple language to clearly explain what costs mean on an energy bill 
2. Explaining ‘the why’ – explaining how the direct debit process works, why a change is being made to a customer’s payment amount and how this benefits them 
3. The action – telling the customer whether they need to take action or not, and what this action is 
4. Highlight key information – highlighting key messages in bold so it is easy for the consumer to find and read 
5. Summarise key information – summarising any key information upfront 
6. Visual aids – to support visual learners, including simple graphs or charts to explain the information from their energy bill
7. Easy-to-read font – making the communication easily legible and quick to read

While there may be other ways to address stress and distrust caused by energy bill communications, this research focuses on a few simple and easy upgrades which providers can adopt to help improve their customers’ experiences.

Figure 5a shows our ‘control’ mock communication, based on existing communications currently used by energy providers. Figure 5b shows an example of how our recommended features can be implemented in a communication about direct debit changes and how many research participants found these features useful. However, we believe these features could also be incorporated into wider energy communications, including energy bills themselves and accompanying cover letters/emails.

 Figure 5a: The mock ‘control’ examples of existing energy communications

Figure 5b: The mock ‘test’ communication, including the key features and principles of clear consumer communication. The statistics demonstrate how many research participants found these features useful [28]

How we tested it 

To assess the effectiveness of these changes we ran a series of A/B testing experiments in which participants were shown an example of an energy bill communication [29]. The sample was split into two: a ‘control’ group who were presented with a mock communication that was produced by Which? to reflect current energy providers’ communications as closely as possible, and a ‘test’ group which was presented the same document, but with upgrades made to the language, format and visuals as described above.

We tested the effectiveness of these features by asking respondents a set of comprehension questions to explore how well they had understood the information conveyed by the mock communication. Questions covered both the main facts of the communication (e.g. amount of energy used and payments received), and a specific set of questions about a proposed direct debit change. This direct debit element was included as the majority of energy customers pay via direct debit [30] and are likely to have received communications from their providers about increasing their payment in the last year [31]. We had also heard worrying anecdotal evidence of consumers considering switching away from paying by direct debit to another (likely more expensive) payment method.

A detailed methodology for the A/B tests is provided in Annex 2 (download with the main report).  

Our findings

The research found that presenting information in a clear way using these features improved consumers’ understanding of key information. Of those who were shown the mock ‘test’ communication including our upgraded features, almost half (45%) of consumers answered the comprehension questions correctly. This was significantly higher than the 27% of those who saw the mock ‘control’ communication without our features.

We also wanted to establish which features were found by consumers to be the most helpful, so that providers can consider this when making changes to their communications. To do this we spoke to consumers who found the ‘test’ communication ‘easy to understand’ and asked them what factors were helpful. Respondents told us that the use of simple language and full sentences to explain the costs (see Figure 6) was most impactful – this came top of the features when ranked, with 7 in 10 consumers (72%) saying it helped improve their understanding. This finding echoes the conclusions of the Plain Numbers research [32] and reiterates the positive impact of using simple language, as consumers have a better understanding of their energy bill content and direct debit changes.

Figure 6: An example of how simple language was used in the mock test communication

The feature rated as second most helpful was ‘explaining the why’ – in this case, explaining the reasons why a change was being made to a customers’ direct debit amount. Ofgem regulation requires suppliers to provide an explanation of how a direct debit change has been determined. This explanation needs to be in clear, plain and intelligible language [33]. However, our research went one step further to test whether explaining why by giving the background reasons in full would improve consumer understanding, and increase the customer’s propensity to accept the change. Figure 7 shows the wording we tested:

Figure 7: An example of explaining the ‘why’ in the mock ‘test’ communication

Introducing simple explanations for how direct debits work was useful for most consumers. We showed respondents an example of clear communication of a direct debit change (see Figure 7), which 86% said would be a useful message to receive from their energy provider in these circumstances.

As we can see in Figure 8, two-thirds (65%) of those who received the simple explanation completely understood why the change was needed. This was compared to 48% of those who saw existing communications – a significant improvement.

Figure 8: Consumers receiving clear communication had a higher understanding of direct debit increases

Furthermore, increased understanding also translated to greater acceptance. As illustrated in Figure 9, consumers who were given a simple explanation of how direct debits work, as well as a clear rationale for why the changes are needed, were significantly more likely to accept the changes. By contrast, consumers who did not receive any explanation were significantly more likely to challenge the change – 38% of those who didn’t receive the explanation told us they would challenge the change, compared to just 28% of those who received our test explanation. 

This demonstrates that if consumers are given the information to clearly understand the process and why the change is needed, they are less likely to question it. In practice they could therefore be less likely to contact their supplier to query the change, as well as being more likely to maintain payments at a level suitable to avoid financial difficulty, and to avoid switching to a more expensive payment method.

 Figure 9: Consumers receiving clear communications are more likely to accept direct debit changes

Another way to help consumers’ understanding is through the use of simple graphs and charts which can help some consumers to visualise the meaning of information more easily. Using visual aids to explain the need for direct debit changes was found to be useful by 46% of respondents who saw the improved test communication.

Our test communication also makes clear what action needs to be taken by the customer, which three in five (63%) felt was helpful. For communications where no action is required, this should similarly be made clear. 

It is also important to consider how the information is being visually presented and how this can support customers’ understanding – especially for those who are more visual learners. Whilst the below features aren’t an exhaustive list of the possible ways to do this, participants in our experiment rated the following format changes as helpful: 

1. Highlight key information – highlighting key information, for example through the use of bold text, allows consumers to quickly digest the information without the need to identify the most important information for themselves - over half of consumers found this helpful.
2. Provide a streamlined summary – summarising any key information in a concise way upfront, without the clutter of additional information, can again help the speed at which consumers process important points from the communication. 
3. Use an easy-to-read font – fonts can really impact the readability of information within a communication, affecting the speed in which consumers are able to get the information they need and their ability to understand any key messages. Considering the accessibility of the font used is a minor change which can ensure all customers can engage with and understand the information within their energy bill communications [34].

Chapter 3: Conclusion and Recommendations

Changes energy providers can make to support consumer understanding

During a cost of living crisis in which more and more energy customers are struggling to get by, it’s particularly important that consumers are able to get in touch with their providers to seek the support they need. However, as increasing numbers of customers are struggling to cope with their energy bills and are in need of help, energy companies are having difficulty managing the growing demand for their customer services, and are too often letting customers down. 

Our research has shown that unclear communications are causing additional problems of higher stress and anxiety amongst customers, and low trust in energy companies. The communications that energy suppliers are currently using with their customers are also leading to poor comprehension, and driving customers to get in touch with their companies to raise queries, seek help or complain.

A simple way in which energy providers can tackle these issues is by making sure they are communicating as clearly as possible with their customers about what they are being asked to pay and why. The upgraded communication example we tested shows that customers have better understanding when information is presented using simple language to explain what the costs mean. 

Our research has also shown that introducing clearer communications makes it less likely that customers will query direct debit changes, as customers are more likely to understand why these changes are being made – which could also reduce the burden on suppliers’ customer services. Customers who received our upgraded communications also reported higher levels of trust in their energy provider, and reduced levels of stress and anxiety. 

Currently, we know that providers are communicating with their customers in a variety of different ways and there are significant differences in their billing and direct debit communications. While some are communicating more clearly than others, the scale of consumer confusion our research has uncovered demonstrates a clear need for all companies to reflect on how they are communicating and consider making changes.

While current practice varies between providers, we believe there are areas of all providers’ communications that could be improved. We are therefore calling on energy companies to make sure that all of their communications about billing and direct debits incorporate the following elements wherever possible:

1. Use simple language and full sentences to explain what the costs mean. Rather than using numbers with no context (such as in Figure 10), explanatory text should accompany the numbers, to explain in simple language and full sentences what the numbers indicate (as in Figure 11). Technical language such as ‘credit’ and ‘debit’ should be avoided where possible, or clearly explained.

Figure 10:

Figure 11: Illustration of how costs could be communicated more clearly

2. Explain why a direct debit change is needed (where required). This includes two parts:

a. Include a simple explanation of how direct debits work. A short explanation of how direct debits spread payments evenly across the year, including the function of credit balances, should be included. A way in which this can be achieved is illustrated below:

b. Fully explain the reason(s) why any change to the direct debit payment amount is needed. Should changes to the payment amount be needed, communications should clearly set out the background reason(s) why the current amount is not sufficient, for example due to a price increase, or because usage is predicted to increase. This should go beyond simply stating that the current amount will not be enough to cover the predicted costs, to also explain the reason(s) why. Our template communication provides an example for how providers could implement this: 

3. Include a personalised graph. A tailored visual representation can help to aid the comprehension of the information. For example, a personalised graph to demonstrate a customer’s individual predicted costs can help to explain why a direct debit amount needs to change.

4. Clearly state what action, if any, is required from the customer. In any communication, but particularly when communicating that changes need to be made on a customer’s account (for example a change to the direct debit payment amount), consumers should be clearly told what they need to do – or it should be made clear that they don’t need to do anything.

5. Consider readability when making decisions about formatting, font and structure, making sure that key information is clearly signposted. Consumers in our experiment found that the emboldening of key information, providing a summary of essential information upfront (without including a lot of additional information) and using an easy-to-read font helped to make the communication more easily comprehensible. Providers should consider these and other ways to make it easy for customers to identify the key takeaway information.

These simple changes could make a tangible improvement to consumers’ experiences of engaging with their energy bills, and help to lessen stress and anxiety at a difficult time. The benefits of these changes will also be felt over the longer term, by empowering consumers to better understand and trust in what they are being asked to pay and why. For providers, there is an opportunity to tackle problems of misunderstanding at their root before consumers need to get in touch with their customer service departments, as well as to build a more trusted reputation among their customers. 

Footnotes

[1] Which? (2022), Energy bills transparency  ↑

[2] Which? Annual Energy Customer Survey 2022. We surveyed 10,197 adults in Great Britain between 14th and 26th October 2022 about their gas and electricity providers. Fieldwork was carried out by Deltapoll on behalf of Which  ↑

[3] Examples of test communications used within the research can be found in the annex (download with the main report)  ↑

[4] Ofgem (2023), Retail Indicators  ↑

[5] Ofgem (2023), Customers to pay less for energy bills from summer  ↑

[6] Cornwall Insights (2023), Cornwall Insights release price cap predictions for July 2023 and March 2024  ↑

[7] National Energy Action (2022), Fuel Poverty Explainer  ↑

[8] National Energy Action (2023), Fuel Poverty Explainer  ↑

[9] Which? (2022), Energy bills transparency  ↑

[10] The Consumer Insight Panel was a longitudinal qualitative panel made up of 35 households from across the UK. The panel took place from September 2021 until August 2022 and was created to help understand how household finances change across the year and what impacts this, as well as exploring consumer experiences in specific areas such as the energy sector  ↑

[11] Electricity Act 1989, Standard conditions of electricity supply licence, July 2022  ↑

[12] Ofgem’s Customer Service Data 2023 found that in the last quarter of 2022, almost one in ten (12%) consumers were dissatisfied with the ease of understanding energy bills  ↑

[13] Which? Annual Energy Customer Survey 2022. We surveyed 10,197 adults in Great Britain between 14th and 26th October 2022 about their gas and electricity providers. Fieldwork was carried out by an external research provider on behalf of Which?  ↑

[14] Ofgem (2023), Ofgem review reveals that customer service standards of energy suppliers must improve  ↑

[15] The fieldwork was conducted by Yonder on behalf of Which? between 23–24 January 2023. A sample of 2,082 consumers was surveyed online and weighted to be nationally representative  ↑

[16] Which? (2022), Energy bills transparency  ↑

[17] Which? Annual Energy Customer Survey 2022. We surveyed 10,197 adults in Great Britain between 14th and 26th October 2022 about their gas and electricity providers. Fieldwork was carried out by an external research provider on behalf of Which?  ↑

[18] Which? (2023) Consumer trust in November 2022  ↑

[19] Ofgem (2023), Retail Indicators  ↑

[20] The fieldwork was conducted by Yonder on behalf of Which? between 23rd-24th January 2023. A sample of 2,082 consumers was surveyed online and weighted to be nationally representative  ↑

[21] Ostriching behaviour is a cognitive bias that describes how, instead of dealing with a negative situation, people bury their heads in the sand, like ostriches. Full paper by the Decision Lab (undated) Ostrich Effect  ↑

[22] Which? (2022), Consumer trust in November 2022  ↑

[23] The Consumer Cost of Living Panel was a longitudinal qualitative panel made up of 30 households from across the UK. The panel started in October 2022 and will run until September 2023, and focuses in on the impact of the cost of living crisis  ↑

[24] Citizens advice (2022), Worst customer service on record from energy companies, says Citizens Advice  ↑

[25] Which? (2023), Calm in a crisis: Which? Reveals best and worst energy firms as customer ratings drop  ↑

[26] Ofgem (2023), Ofgem completes review of suppliers' customer service and complaints handling  ↑

[27] Plain Numbers (2021), Plain Numbers project: Initial trials report  ↑

[28] Percentages were taken from survey responses. Survey question “What, if any, of the following helped make the information easy to understand?” Base:All who saw clear comms and found task easy (n=724)  ↑

[29] When we talk about energy bill communications in this research we are referring to cover letters and emails from providers that accompany customers’ energy bills, energy bills themselves, as well as communications about changes to their payments (e.g. direct debits)  ↑

[30] According to Ofgem figures in 2019, over 56% of customers pay their energy bills via direct debit  ↑

[31] Ofgem found over 7 million energy consumers on a Standard Variable Tariff (SVT) saw an increase in their direct debit between February and April 2022. On average, direct debit levels for customers on an SVT increased by 62% in this period  ↑

[32] Plain Numbers (2021), Plain Numbers project: Initial trials report  ↑

[33]  Electricity Act 1989, Standard conditions of electricity supply licence, July 2022. ‘SLC 27.14 The licensee must provide to each such Domestic Customer an explanation in clear, plain and intelligible language of the basis upon which a fixed amount (and any variation of that fixed amount) has been determined.’  ↑

[34] Scope (2023), Accessible fonts and readability: the basics  ↑

Über uns

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that works with politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. As an organisation we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.