Reports Archives - End Fuel Poverty Coalition

Eight in ten people fear rising energy bills as voters back energy Windfall Tax

The majority of the public are worried about rising energy costs as a result of the conflict with in Iran, according to new polling by Survation for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.

83% of the public are worried about energy bills and 44% say they would be unable to afford the expected £228 annual increase in energy bills from 1 July.

A quarter of these respondents claim they would be “completely unable to pay my energy bill” if costs rose to this level.

As energy bills are set to rise, a majority of the public (64%) believe that the energy industry is profiteering from the conflict in Iran.

Over half (53%) of the population say that ending the Windfall Tax now would be the wrong thing to do (just 22% felt that it should be ended) as some industry groups have called for.

More generally, 41% of the public support the Windfall Tax on energy firms, compared to just 17% opposing it. Meanwhile, almost half (47%) believe that windfall taxes should actually be extended to more companies within the energy industry.

A windfall tax is an additional tax applied when companies make unusually high profits, often due to external factors rather than increased productivity or investment.

Support for the Windfall Tax remains among voters from all parties, according to the data. Among those intending to vote for Reform UK in the next general election, 39% support the Tax with just 24% opposing it. For those thinking of voting Conservative, 44% still support the Levy and 19% oppose it.

Among Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat voters, support is even stronger – as is support for extending the taxes to other sections of the industry.

Backing for the Windfall Tax was also strong in all areas of the country, with people in Wales polling the strongest support for the Levy. Earlier detailed polling in Scotland had shown 41% backing the Tax with 19% opposing it, but the new data suggests that this support has deepened with 44% now in favour of the Levy.

Recent figures have shown that the energy industry made £125bn in profits on their UK operations in the last 5 years and in the month since the conflict in the Middle East began, the share prices of energy companies have soared adding over £233bn to the market capitalisation of firms and resulting in a boost in the wealth of energy firm bosses.

Simon Francis, End Fuel Poverty Coalition coordinator said:

“Trump’s attacks on Iran, the damage to Qatari gas production and the disruption to supplies has led to spikes in the costs of heating oil and gas.

“But while households will feel the effects of this for months to come, the energy industry will continue to benefit from increased prices and a fresh wave of excess profits.

“Not only is the Windfall Tax vital in raising revenue to help those most affected from high energy bills, but this must also be the moment that the country unites to push for more support for energy efficiency measures and boosts renewable energy plans to bring down bills and secure our energy supply for the long-term.”

Robert Palmer, deputy director of Uplift said:

“Politicians calling for an end to the windfall tax just as the oil and gas giants are about to make billions in bumper profits are tone deaf.

“Instead of siding with the profiteering oil industry, political parties should be standing up for billplayers who are facing a steep Trump Tax on everything from their energy bills, to petrol and food.

“Last time, when Russia invaded Ukraine, oil companies didn’t invest their windfall profits in more drilling, instead executives and shareholders got windfall payouts. The government needs to tune out the barrage of special pleading by the oil firms and their political cheerleaders, and focus on real solutions to this crisis.

“The only way to bring down energy costs over the long term is to get off our reliance on oil and gas, and invest as fast as we can in renewables. More North Sea drilling will not take a penny off our bills, only boost the profits of fossil fuel companies.”

ENDS

Survation were commissioned by the End Fuel Poverty Coalition to interview 2,047 people from 2-7 April 2026. Data were weighted to the profile of the UK. Data was weighted by respondent’s sex, age, region, household income, highest qualification, and past vote (GE24, EU16).

Questions cited in the news story (some totals will not sum to 100% due to rounding, sample sizes in Northern Ireland are below 50 and should not be taken as representative)

An Energy Profits Levy (EPL) or ‘Windfall Tax’ was levied on oil and gas companies operating in the UK in May 2022 in response to record oil and gas industry profits and the rapid increase in energy costs following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is due to be in place until 2030. Do you support or oppose, or neither support nor oppose, the current windfall tax on oil and gas company profits?

Strongly support: 20%
Tend to support: 21%
Neither support nor oppose: 26%
Tend to oppose: 9%
Strongly oppose: 8%
Don’t know: 16%

	Total	Voting Intention
	Total	LAB	CON	RFM	LD	GRN	OTH
Strongly support	19.77%	27.43%	19.27%	15.02%	28.16%	20.25%	19.21%
Tend to support	21.34%	25.40%	24.44%	23.82%	33.60%	23.49%	12.85%
Neither support nor oppose	26.42%	25.42%	29.44%	26.48%	19.82%	22.46%	26.61%
Tend to oppose	8.94%	9.66%	10.07%	12.22%	7.24%	8.09%	7.49%
Strongly oppose	8.05%	5.60%	8.68%	11.62%	1.78%	7.51%	8.11%
Don’t know	15.48%	6.49%	8.10%	10.84%	9.41%	18.20%	25.72%
NET: Support	41.11%	52.83%	43.71%	38.83%	61.76%	43.74%	32.07%
NET: Oppose	16.99%	15.27%	18.75%	23.84%	9.02%	15.60%	15.60%

	Total	Region
	Total	London	South	Midlands	North	England	Scotland	Wales	Northern Ireland
Strongly support	19.77%	18.64%	20.93%	15.61%	17.62%	18.65%	24.55%	22.06%	35.86%
Tend to support	21.34%	27.41%	19.77%	21.47%	19.47%	21.19%	19.49%	25.48%	24.59%
Neither support nor oppose	26.42%	25.28%	29.91%	26.95%	27.42%	27.94%	20.17%	20.47%	8.62%
Tend to oppose	8.94%	11.65%	7.72%	9.64%	7.82%	8.72%	10.89%	4.71%	17.09%
Strongly oppose	8.05%	8.30%	7.46%	7.62%	8.41%	7.88%	8.90%	8.21%	10.33%
Don’t know	15.48%	8.71%	14.21%	18.72%	19.25%	15.61%	16%	19.07%	3.51%
NET: Support	41.11%	46.05%	40.70%	37.07%	37.09%	39.84%	44.04%	47.54%	60.45%
NET: Oppose	16.99%	19.95%	15.18%	17.26%	16.23%	16.60%	19.79%	12.92%	27.42%

“It would be wrong to scrap the Windfall Tax now.”

Strongly agree: 24%
Somewhat agree: 28%
Somewhat disagree: 14%
Strong disagree: 8%
Don’t know: 26%

	Total	Voting Intention
	Total	LAB	CON	RFM	LD	GRN	OTH
Strongly agree	24.22%	31%	20.69%	24.95%	29.22%	31.93%	20.74%
Somewhat agree	28.44%	32.61%	38.78%	28.27%	33.37%	22.77%	24.39%
Somewhat disagree	13.98%	14.10%	13.22%	19.03%	10.82%	11.77%	11.66%
Strongly disagree	7.79%	7.40%	5.35%	8.05%	8.53%	8.73%	6.96%
Don’t know	25.57%	14.90%	21.97%	19.70%	18.07%	24.80%	36.25%
NET: Agree	52.66%	63.61%	59.47%	53.22%	62.58%	54.70%	45.13%
NET: Disagree	21.77%	21.50%	18.56%	27.08%	19.34%	20.50%	18.63%

	Total	Region
	Total	London	South	Midlands	North	England	Scotland	Wales	Northern Ireland
Strongly agree	24.22%	25.73%	27.10%	21.52%	18.35%	23.42%	29.51%	26.40%	29.01%
Somewhat agree	28.44%	33.39%	25.43%	28.81%	29.63%	28.46%	23.80%	32.63%	34.61%
Somewhat disagree	13.98%	15.86%	11.76%	16.61%	13.68%	13.85%	14.51%	9.51%	24.13%
Strongly disagree	7.79%	8%	7.95%	8.78%	7.67%	8.04%	6.22%	6.66%	6.85%
Don’t know	25.57%	17.01%	27.75%	24.28%	30.67%	26.23%	25.96%	24.80%	5.39%
NET: Agree	52.66%	59.13%	52.54%	50.33%	47.99%	51.88%	53.31%	59.03%	63.62%
NET: Disagree	21.77%	23.86%	19.72%	25.39%	21.34%	21.89%	20.74%	16.17%	30.98%

Which of the following statements best describes your view?

Energy companies are profiteering from the conflict in Iran: 64%
Energy companies are not profiteering from the conflict in Iran: 15%
I don’t know: 21%

Which of the following comes closest to your view?

Windfall Taxes should be extended to more companies within the energy sector: 47%
Windfall Taxes should not be extended to more companies within the energy sector: 21%
Don’t know: 32%

How concerned are you about the potential rising costs for the following due to the conflict in Iran, if at all? – Energy bills

Very concerned: 55%
Somewhat concerned: 28%
Not very concerned: 8%
Not at all concerned: 4%
Don’t know: 5%
NET, concerned: 83%
NET, not concerned: 12%

Some predict average energy bills to increase by £228 per year in July. If your energy bill were to increase by this amount, which of the following statements best reflects your view?

I would be unable to afford this energy bill price increase: 44%
I would be able to afford this energy bill price increase: 38%
Don’t know: 15%
Prefer not to say: 3%

In the previous question you said that you would be unable to afford this energy bill price increase.In a scenario where your energy bill increased by £228, which of the following statements best reflects your view?

I would have to cut back on essential goods to afford to pay for my energy bill: 49%
I would be completely unable to pay my energy bill: 25%
I would have to cut back on luxury goods to afford to pay for my energy bill: 15%
I would be unable to afford this energy price increase, but I will not cut back on any spending to be able to pay for my energy bill: 9%
Don’t know 2%
Prefer not to say: 1%

Scottish public back the energy Windfall Tax in new poll

Twice as many people in Scotland (41%) support the Windfall Tax than oppose it (19%), with support cutting across all political parties and across all parts of the country, according to new polling. [1]

The Windfall Tax (Energy Profits Levy) was levied on oil and gas companies operating in the UK in May 2022 in response to record oil and gas industry profits and the rapid increase in energy costs following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In recent days, wholesale energy costs have surged 30% year on year as a result of conflict in the Middle East and sit at levels last seen in winter 2022/23. [2]

Energy firms have seen their share prices rise over 7% in the last month (compared to the FTSE 100 rise of 0.43%). This includes North Sea operators who have lobbied heavily to scrap the windfall tax. [3]

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition said:

“Despite the intense lobbying by the oil and gas industry – and their political allies – the Windfall Tax retains the support of the public.

“It’s no surprise that twice as many Scots are in favour of the tax than oppose it and nearly a fifth say that they strongly support the measure.

“As long as people see the disparity between their own living conditions and the huge profits made by energy firms, this support will continue.”

The survey, carried out by Survation, spoke to over two thousand adults in Scotland in a poll that reflects the political make-up of the nation’s voters.

It revealed that Scottish voters from all parties supported the windfall tax.

Support for the windfall tax is highest among people intending to use their Holyrood list vote for the SNP (48%), Labour (53%), Liberal Democrat (61%) and Green (47%). Conservative and Reform UK voters were more likely to support the tax than oppose it (Conservatives 37% support, 34% oppose; Reform UK 32% support, 30% oppose). Similar results were found among constituency voting intention.

Frazer Scott, Chief Executive of Energy Action Scotland, commented:

“Energy companies continue to make excessive profits at the expense of people. People who cannot heat their homes to a safe level and are burdened by £5.5bn of unrepayable domestic energy debt. Until there is reform that puts people at the heart of the energy system it is right for big business to put its fair share back to help those that need it most.”

Jamie Livingstone, Head of Oxfam Scotland, said:

“People aren’t daft; they know that the companies that have polluted our politics and plundered our planet shouldn’t be let off the hook for the spiralling climate destruction they continue to cause.

“Energy giants have racked up years of eye-watering profits. Politicians must ensure they pick up more, not less of the tab for the shift to a clean energy future instead of leaving hard pressed Scots and communities globally facing famine and floods to foot the bill. Fossil fuel companies helped light the fire, continue to fuel it, so it’s only fair they help pay to put it out.”

Friends of the Earth Scotland oil and gas campaigns manager Rosie Hampton commented:

“With the conflict in the Middle East, energy companies could again be making the windfall profits that have caused the cost-of-living pain and suffering in the last five years. People will be rightly worried about household energy bills soaring again as greedy oil giants capitalise on the violence.

“We must not forget that this tax will go to supporting the NHS, educating children and protecting our environment so any politician calling for the tax to end are demanding less support for vital public services.”

Previous End Fuel Poverty Coalition research found that just a handful of energy firms have made around £40 billion in UK profits in the last two years, even with the Energy Profits Levy in place.

The Government has committed to phasing out the tax by 2030 to be replaced by a new tax regime for the sector.

ENDS

[1] Survation asked over 2,000 Scots:

Fieldwork Dates Fieldwork: 10th February – 17th February 2026
Full details are available from the Survation website.
FULL RESULTS
- Strongly support the Windfall Tax 19%
- Tend to support 22%
- Neither support nor oppose 27%
- Tend to oppose 11%
- Strongly oppose 8%
- Don’t know 13%
- NET: Support (Strongly+Tend to) 41%
- NET: Oppose (Strongly+Tend to) 19%
- Weighted total: 2005 respondents
Method – The survey was conducted via Online Panel. Different response rates from different demographic groups were taken into account.
Population Sampled: Adults aged 16+ in Scotland. Sample Size 2,005.
Data Weighting: Data are weighted to the profile of Scotland. Data was weighted by respondent’s sex, age, region, and past vote (2014 referendum, 2016 referendum, 2021 Scottish parliamentary election, 2024 general election). Targets for the weighted data are derived from the ONS.
Margin of Error Because only a sample of the full population was interviewed, all results are subject to margin of error, meaning that not all differences are statistically significant. For example, in a question where 50% of respondents (the worst case scenario as far as margin of error is concerned) gave a particular answer, with a sample of 2005 it is 95% certain that the ‘true’ value will fall within the range of 2.33% from the sample result. Subsamples from cross-breaks will be subject to higher margin of error. Conclusions drawn from crossbreaks with very small sub-samples should be treated with caution.
Polling available to download as an .xls here.

[2] Trading Economics Data as at 6 March 0900. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas

[3] Profits data from https://www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/news/energy-firm-profits-tracker/.

Share price data from Bloomberg 6 March 0900, data as at close of business on 4 March. 10 energy firms listed on London Stock Exchange are monitored through a watchlist and prices compared to 8 February. These firms represent a mix of producers, suppliers, traders and supply chain in both fossil fuel and renewable sectors. Within this, specific surge examples include Ithaca Energy (+15%), Harbour Energy (+13%) and BP (+4%) all rising strongly in the immediate aftermath of the American / Israeli attacks on Iran. Harbour rose from 242.4 on 25 Feb to 274.8 on 3 March. Ithaca 213.5 to 245.5. BP 470.25 to 488.20.

MPs back major reforms to energy bill support

MPs on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee have backed a series of reforms to make the energy system fairer and support households facing a fifth winter of high bills.

In a major report on tackling the energy cost crisis, MPs recommended a permanent energy debt relief scheme funded through energy sector excess profits, automatic support for vulnerable households, a social tariff for energy and reforms to the Warm Home Discount.

The Committee also called for urgent action to fix unfair standing charges, improve data sharing to target support and overhaul Cold Weather Payments to ensure help reaches those who need it when temperatures drop.

Crucially, the Committee echoed the Coalition’s warnings about the growing energy debt crisis and proposed a structured, long-term solution to write off unpayable arrears without passing costs onto billpayers.

It also urged the Government and Ofgem to act quickly to rebuild trust in the energy market, strengthen consumer protections and ensure households are not penalised for reducing gas use as the energy system transitions.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“This report should be used to mark a turning point in the fight to end the energy cost crisis. The cross-party group of MPs have recognised what millions of households already know – our energy system has been stacked against people struggling to heat their homes and urgent change is needed.

“We are particularly pleased that MPs have backed the principle of energy debt relief funded through excess profits in the sector, alongside a social tariff, reforms to standing charges and improvements to the Warm Home Discount and Cold Weather Payments. These are landmark recommendations that could protect the most vulnerable.

“As this report makes clear, warm homes must be treated as a public health priority, with fair pricing, modernised winter protections, social tariffs and stronger rights for renters.

“If the Government is serious about implementing change, the Warm Homes Plan announced next month must be the first step. That means a £13.2 billion plan to create warmer and safer homes for those most in need, independent quality checks, skilled green jobs, trusted local advice services and prioritisation of the lowest-income households in the coldest homes.”

In responses to Government consultations, charities and fuel poverty experts have set out the key tests the Government’s forthcoming Warm Homes Plan and Fuel Poverty Strategy must meet. These include:

Treating warm, safe housing as a public health priority and retain the target to end fuel poverty by 2030
Adopting a 10% fuel poverty measure (after housing costs)
Committing to a 10-year national retrofit programme, agreed across parties, backed by skilled jobs, apprenticeships and national standards
Prioritising the Worst First — low-income households in the coldest, least efficient homes
Guaranteeing independent retrofit assessment, performance monitoring and consumer protections
Providing free, trusted local advice services and one-stop-shops for households
Funding delivery through public spending, not new levies on bills
Introducing targeted financial support including modernised cold weather payments and social tariffs
Empowering local authorities with data access and funding to lead street-by-street schemes
Protecting tenants from “retrovictions” and unfair rent rises

The spokesperson added:
“Warm homes are a basic right. This must be the moment the Government finally commits to a long-term plan to end fuel poverty — not just improve averages or fund short-term schemes.

“We need a decade-long Warm Homes Plan that delivers real-world warmth, safety and affordable bills, backed by independent quality checks, trusted advice and proper protection for tenants and consumers.

“After years of delays and stop-start programmes, it’s time to get on with delivery and ensure support reaches those in deepest need first.”

ENDS

The full report can be read here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmesnz/736/report.html

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition’s evidence to the inquiry can be read online.

Fuel poverty statistics show 12m UK households struggling with energy costs

The number of UK households struggling with the cost of their energy bills has hit 12.1 million as campaigners warn Ofgem that people can not take any more price increases. [1]

With the latest price cap announcement due on Wednesday (August 27), experts say even the one percent increase predicted will lead to further suffering. The next rise will come into force in October and cover the period until the end of 2025 before prices will change again from January 2026.

Two fifths (43%) of UK households are struggling with energy bills and spending more than 10% of their household income on gas and electricity based on the research by the University of York. Of these, almost 5m households spend more than 20% of their income on energy, meaning they are in deep fuel poverty.

The figures also enable a comparison between the constituent parts of the UK. Northern Ireland and the West Midlands have the highest poverty rates, followed by Scotland and the North East. Meanwhile, the lowest rates are in Wales, the South West and Eastern England. [2]

The data also reveals types of households which will be hardest by any price rise. Households with children are the most likely to be struggling with their energy costs as are people who rent their homes. There is also a correlation between the lower the council tax band and the higher the fuel poverty rate.

3.2 million of those in fuel poverty are pensioner households, with 964,000 pensioner households in deep fuel poverty, meaning they spend more than 20% of their income on energy.

Meanwhile official figures also reveal that the level of energy debt is still increasing to an all time high, with millions of households owing a combined £4.15bn in debt. [3]

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition said:

“Fuel poverty is very much still with us and these figures highlight how vital schemes like the Warm Home Discount are to help those struggling each year.

“But we are now approaching the fifth winter of the energy bills crisis and the time for tinkering with the price cap is over.

“The average household is still paying 67% more for their energy than in winter 2020/21. Ofgem is right to launch a comprehensive review of how energy system costs are allocated, but simply shifting budgets between standing charges and unit rates will not solve the problem.

“We also need to realise that the North Sea is now in terminal decline and unable to meet the UK’s long-term heating needs, despite what some politicians would have us believe.

“This means we must urgently plan to cut our dependence on gas and bring down the cost of electricity.

“Failure to act will lead to even greater reliance on gas imports, reduced energy security and increased energy bills.

“As well as looking at the price cap, we need to scrutinise the profits made by transmission and network companies, while Ministers must step in to ensure investment and funding decisions bring down the cost to bill payers of maintaining our vital infrastructure.”

Campaigners are now urging the Government and Ofgem to look at other ways to raise revenue for network improvements and point to the half a trillion pound profits made by energy companies since 2020 and the £4 billion in excess profits energy networks pocketed after a regulatory decision.

Uplift Executive Director Tessa Khan commented:

“This is unwelcome news for the millions of people who find themselves in fuel poverty, even before it begins to turn cold.

“The primary cause of the years of persistently high energy prices is the UK’s dependency on gas to generate electricity and heat our homes – which at its peak was three times higher than pre-crisis levels and remains almost double what it was.

“Oil and gas firms, who are lobbying against the shift to homegrown renewable energy, want it to stay this way so they can continue to make billions at our expense.

“Any politician who sides with these profiteering oil giants – and opposes the insulation of homes and building of more renewables – is working against the interests of UK pensioners, families and anyone else struggling with unaffordable energy bills.”

Jonathan Bradshaw, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of York, said:

“Official statistics on fuel poverty don’t show the full picture of suffering caused by high energy bills.

“Our research uses benchmark official figures on living standards along with energy tariff data and statistical models to estimate the impact of energy costs on the population as a whole and on different groups of people.

“While the data shows a slight reduction in the numbers of households struggling compared to 2022/23, it is clear that fuel poverty is still with us.”

ENDS

[1] FUEL POVERTY IS STILL WITH US. Munalli, Gianluca; Bradshaw, Jonathan Richard; Richardson, Dominic .

13 p. 2025, Paper.

Research output: Other contribution

https://cpag.org.uk/news/fuel-poverty-still-us

The figures are inline with official data from 2024 for England which state that “the number of households who are required to spend more than 10 per cent of their income (after housing costs) on domestic energy… [for] 2024 [is], 36.3 per cent of households (8.99 million)… up from 35.5 per cent in 2023 (8.73 million)” and predicted a rise for 2025. The English figure for 2025 based on the York data is 9.94 million.

[2] Regional breakdown table sorted by the % of the area paying more than 20% of household income on energy in 2025.

Region	% of households of demographic spending more than 10% of income on energy 2022/23	% of households of demographic spending more than 10% of income on energy 2025	% of households of demographic spending more than 20% of income on energy 2022/23	% of households of demographic spending more than 20% of income on energy 2025
Northern Ireland	60.2	59.3	28.8	27.9
West Midlands	51.9	51.2	23.6	22.3
Scotland	47	44.3	18.9	18.1
North East	48.5	44.5	17.7	17.7
Yorkshire and the Humber	46.5	45.4	17.1	17.1
London	31.8	31.1	16.8	16.8
North West and Merseyside	47.3	45.5	16.7	16.7
East Midlands	43.5	40.9	15	14.3
South East	38.6	36.2	15.5	14.1
East of England	40.8	39.6	14.1	13.9
South West	39.6	38.4	13	12.2
Wales	42.7	42.2	12.1	12.1

[3] Latest figures based on Q1 2025: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data/debt-and-arrears-indicators

Report reveals scale of health crisis fuelled by poor housing

A new landmark report by health charity Medact reveals that three quarters of health workers regularly see patients whose poor housing is harming their health – with more than 1 in 10 witnessing this almost every day.

Drawing on an opinion poll of over 2,000 healthcare workers, Home Sick Home: Frontline views on the public health crisis of unhealthy homes explores the public health impacts of the UK’s housing crisis on patients, health workers, and the NHS. The study found that nearly half (45%) of health workers have had to send a patient home knowing their housing would make them ill again.

“We see the same issues time and again – families living in mould-ridden, insecure homes, children developing asthma and anxiety, elderly people afraid to turn on their heating,” said Sophia, a clinical psychologist quoted in the report. “We’re not treating patients. We’re sending them back into the very conditions that made them sick.”

Key findings:

70% regularly see mental health conditions caused or worsened by housing issues
65% see patients living in excessively cold homes; 61% hear of damp and mould; 63% see unaffordable rent driving ill-health
64% regularly treat children whose health problems are likely linked to insecure housing; 67% say damp and mould are causing children’s respiratory issues.

The report echoes previous findings of research by the Social Workers Union which revealed that over a fifth (21%) of social workers working with children, young people and families have seen their service remove a child or children from their family in the last three years where unsafe or inappropriate housing conditions was a key contributing factor.

The report says that the crisis is especially acute among vulnerable groups, with older adults, disabled people, and children experiencing housing-related illness. From mental health crises in new parents to chronic asthma in children, the testimonies included in the report reveal how unsafe housing is deepening health inequalities across the UK. The survey found that 66% of respondents see disabled people in unsuitable homes likely making them ill at least once a month.

“Given everything we know about the positives of good-quality housing, I never thought I’d see a rise in Victorian-age diseases,” said children’s doctor Krishnan in the report.

From cold, damp, overcrowded homes to skyrocketing rents and constant eviction threats, the report paints a picture of a housing system in collapse – and a public health crisis that is impacting both people’s health and the NHS.

It shows that health workers back political action to protect patient health and the NHS: 69% believe making renting more affordable would reduce the burden on the NHS, whilst 58% say increasing the supply of social housing would ease NHS pressures

More than two thirds (69%) agreed with the statements “I feel powerless to support my patients with their housing conditions” and “government spending to prevent illnesses created by cold homes is better for the NHS than having to spend money to nurse patients back to health”.

The report sets out ten recommendations, including rent controls, a national retrofitting programme, building more social housing, and a social energy guarantee to ensure no one has to choose between heating and eating.

Medact member and children’s doctor Dr Amaran Uthayakumar-Cumarasamy said:

“Colleagues feel a deep-seated sense of helplessness and feel redundant in their capacity to make meaningful health improvements in the lives of patients. Coupled with the existing pressures of working in a system that’s under-resourced, this leads to apathy. It’s tempting to think that the NHS alone can socially prescribe its way out of the housing crisis, but my experiences and those of colleagues suggest this simply will not scratch the surface let alone bring meaningful and lasting change. Yes, the NHS does need resourcing but if we’re serious about ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’, then that needs to be translated into policy.”

Laura Vicinanza, Senior Policy and Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Inclusion London said:

“It is no secret that disabled people are at the sharpest end of the housing crisis. Yet, this problem has been ignored for decades. Too many Disabled people are trapped in inaccessible homes, battling evictions, and facing skyrocketing rents – often forced to cut back on essentials just to afford their housing costs. Medact’s new report uncovers a very grim reality: poor and unaffordable housing doesn’t just worsen people’s existing health conditions—it creates new ones, with health professionals left to pick up the pieces of a broken housing system. But it doesn’t have to be this way. The Government has the power to solve this crisis. They can act now by making rents more affordable and kickstarting a revolution in accessible social homebuilding. We cannot afford to wait any longer.”

Dr Abi O’Connor, researcher at the New Economics Foundation, said:

“Private landlords have been allowed to increase rents to eye-watering levels and now we’re seeing the consequences – it’s making people and our economy sicker. If the government are interested in improving the economy for ordinary people, it is clear they must address the plague of unaffordable rents. In the short term they should introduce rent controls to give people stability, and in the long term they will need to build more social housing which is the only way to provide people with safe, affordable homes .”

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“Addressing the housing challenge is more than health workers can do themselves.

“Not only do we need to see investment in a £13.2bn Warm Homes Plan to help improve housing conditions, but we also need a full range of fully-functioning and well-resourced public services.”

The good, the bad and the ugly sides of energy market trading revealed

Reforming the energy market trading system could save households £173.34 per year on their electricity bill, according to a new report. [1]

The system sees units of gas and electricity traded on international markets and the analysis by Future Energy Associates sets out “the good, the bad and the ugly” sides of this process.

Chief among the “bad” issues identified in the report is the role of speculative trading where companies trade energy solely for financial gain without directly delivering electricity to consumers.

This type of trading increases the frequency and volume of trades, which can impact overall market prices. Speculative traders attempt to profit from price fluctuations, buying low and selling high, potentially adding to price volatility.

A significant number of the trading firms place trades on market exchanges for electricity and gas for a specific location. However, often these trading houses are based offshore or structured to avoid direct UK tax obligations, allowing them to operate with fewer tax liabilities compared to domestic companies. This setup enables such firms to retain a larger share of profits.

These dedicated trading firms that engage in high-volume trading to capitalise on price fluctuations and focus on profit driven strategies include Vitol (annual profits $15.1bn), Trafigura ($7.4bn), Glencore ($5bn), and Mercuria ($2.7bn). Recent supply shocks, driven largely by reliance on foreign gas, have allowed trading teams to capitalise on market volatility.

The report did find that some energy trading can be “good” and help keep prices stable [2], but there are also significant issues with the “ugly” current system used by energy retailers.

Retailers are required to be more risk-averse and lack the technical expertise of other trading houses and take on risk premiums when setting household tariffs, ultimately passing these costs onto consumers.

Energy retailers often engage in “Over The Counter trading” (OTC). This involves brokers and financial firms profiting for providing liquidity. Every trade comes with extra costs like fees and commissions, which ultimately increase household energy bills and can make prices even more unstable.

The report highlights that the direct impact of trading activities on consumer bills via the Ofgem price cap is challenging to quantify with a lack of transparency making it difficult for consumers and industry stakeholders to assess how much trading influences the final capped prices.

However the researchers have recommended that changes are made to the market structure – including a more active role for GB Energy to eliminate market inefficiency in trading. The researchers calculated that eliminating these market inefficiencies in a perfect world could save 6.4 p/kWh off every unit of electricity used.

This could potentially save UK electricity bill payers around £4.51 billion annually, with each household saving about £173.34 per year on their electricity bill.

Report author, Dylan Johnson, from Future Energy Associates, commented:

“Volatility in energy prices benefits speculative traders who use advanced algorithms to exploit rapid price changes. Equipped with high-frequency trading technology, these traders can profit from even minor price swings throughout the day, buying low and selling high within milliseconds.

“This speculative activity often drives prices away from the true cost of generation, creating added instability that ultimately impacts consumer prices.

“Key players, including independent traders like Vitol, Trafigura, Gunvor, and Mercuria, have significantly benefited from increased profits, with gross earnings for the sector reaching $148 billion in 2022. This growth was spurred by volatile markets, especially in gas and power, which have now surpassed oil as the primary profit drivers.”

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“This report reveals the good, the bad and the ugly sides of market trading.

“At its worst, trading creates a system that is skewed against consumers with billionaire trading firms, hedge funds and banks profiting from volatile energy prices.

“These groups are also gambling with the ability of hard stretched households to keep warm every winter and put hot food on the table.

“Ministers and MPs should urgently investigate how these firms operate and the impact they are having on energy bills. More widely, the launch of GB Energy should act as an opportunity to reform the trading market so it improves security and brings down the cost of energy.”

Caroline Simpson, Campaign Manager for Warm This Winter, which commissioned the study, added:

“Yet again we see how the energy sector trades on people’s misery. It’s unfair and ending this could save UK electricity bill payers around £4.51 billion annually, that’s a much-needed £173.34 per year for households.

“We need reforms like this to kick in urgently, including making Ofgem get to grips with the industry and closing loopholes that netted a £4 billion windfall for network companies we are demanding is given back to billpayers.

“This government is on the right path after over a decade of neglect and must continue their commitment to serious investment in home insulation and ramping up our renewable energy production to bring down bills. That will have the added benefit of boosting our energy security during these uncertain times.”

ENDS

[1] Tariff Watch – Impacts of Trading, FEA / Warm This Winter, April 2025 (pdf).

[2] Benefits of so called “physical trading” include balancing supply & demand (ensuring electricity production matches real-time demand, preventing waste and shortages), supporting grid flexibility & renewables (balancing the grid using batteries, EVs, and demand response, making it easier to integrate renewable energy) and in some cases lowering costs (by encouraging competition, helping to keep energy prices down).

Ministers should go further on Warm Home Discount reforms

The UK Government’s proposed expansion of the Warm Home Discount (WHD) is a welcome step, but campaigners have urged ministers to go further in ensuring vulnerable households receive the support they need this winter and beyond.

From 1 April 2025, energy bills will rise by 6.4%, keeping costs at levels 77% higher than in 2020. Millions of households – especially older people, renters, prepayment meter users, and those with health conditions – are struggling to afford these soaring costs.

In a consultation issued by Government, Ministers have proposed removing the high-cost-to-heat threshold from WHD rules which means that more means-tested benefit claimants will be able to qualify for the scheme.

However, in the End Fuel Poverty Coalition response to the consultation, experts stress that disabled people and those on non-means-tested disability benefits must also be included, as they often face significantly higher heating costs.

Furthermore, campaigners argue the WHD should be increased in line with inflation and funded from sources like the £4bn in excess profits made by energy network companies, rather than customer bills.

Expanding the Park Homes Warm Home Discount Scheme (PHWHDS) is also crucial, as many in atypical housing arrangements have been excluded from previous energy support. This includes people living in park homes who tend to be older and also those such as Gypsy, Traveller, and Boater communities.

However, there are concerns that broadening the scheme without increasing funding will mean many existing and newly eligible households could miss out.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“We strongly support the expansion of the Warm Home Discount as set out in the consultation. However, we believe that in expanding the scheme, the Government must also extend the support to more households who will otherwise suffer in cold damp homes next winter.

“Ministers’ proposals must also be properly resourced, rather than diverting money from energy advice initiatives that help those struggling with energy costs.

“Looking ahead, we need to see a more sustainable, long-term energy bill support scheme that targets all low-income households, including those with high energy needs who do not receive means-tested benefits.”

ENDS

Full consultation response available: https://www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/news/reports-and-correspondence/

Image credit: Ascannio / Shutterstock.com

Campaigners urge stronger action on energy standing charge tariff reform

Charities and consumer groups have warned that Ofgem’s proposals for standing charge reform could see many households end up worse off if they accept one of the proposed tariffs.

In a submission to the official consultation on the issue, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition describes how consumers would only need to use half of the “typical domestic consumption values” before their bills increase if on a “zero standing charge” tariff.

Given the risks posed by the proposals, campaigners stress that the consultation should proceed with extreme caution and only after thorough piloting and evaluation to assess potential negative impacts on consumer behaviour.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition explains the concerns:

“In essence, the proposals create only two groups who might see savings.

“Firstly, those who drastically self-ration or self-disconnect from energy, potentially putting their health and well-being at risk. There can be no ethical justification for forcing households to reduce energy use to dangerously low levels in order to maintain the benefits of a particular tariff.

“The second group who may benefit are those who can minimise usage through smart technology, but this risks creating further inequality in the energy market due to ongoing issues with smart meter rollout.”

Other concerns expressed by the Coalition argue that the proposals do not move costs away from energy bills and simply “rearrange the deckchairs”, that they present a flawed version of rising block tariff for consideration and do not contain wider proposals for reform previously put forward (pdf).

It is argued that the current consultation also fails to address the unfair burden of standing charges, particularly for prepayment meter customers, who often accrue standing charge debt when disconnected.

National Energy Action warns that under the next price cap, some gas prepay users could face nearly £60 in charges before they can reconnect their supply and that 67% of prepayment users expect to ration their energy, highlighting the financial hardship imposed by the existing system.

Unlike other consumers, prepayment customers often lack a direct relationship with suppliers, making it unlikely they will switch to proposed zero-standing charge tariffs.

Campaigners are calling for more targeted policy solutions, including shifting standing charge accrual to the back of prepayment meters to prevent debt accumulation. They argue this measure would be minimally disruptive for suppliers while significantly helping vulnerable households.

The spokesperson continued:

We know that some of these issues need to be addressed working with the Government and are not in Ofgem’s gift. We urge the regulator to think again and meet with Ministers to discuss how their decisions can positively alter the affordability of energy bills, avoid discriminatory pricing and deliver longer-term reforms that bring down the cost of energy.

ENDS

Full consultation response available: https://www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/news/reports-and-correspondence/

Millions to spend a fourth winter in cold damp homes

New figures reveal that 16% of UK adults (8.8m people) live in cold damp homes, exposed to the health complications that come from living in fuel poverty. [1]

While the Government has announced that a Warm Homes Plan will help improve people’s homes in years to come, this will come too late for the one in ten (9%) who frequently experienced, dangerous, levels of mould in their homes over the past 12 months.

People who live in poorly insulated homes risk seeing damp and mould spread and the NHS warns that people living in these conditions are more likely to have respiratory problems, respiratory infections, allergies or asthma.

Damp and mould can also affect the immune system while living in such conditions can also increase the risk of heart disease, heart attacks or strokes.

Cold homes can cause and worsen respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, poor mental health, dementia and hypothermia as well as cause and slow recovery from injury.

To tackle the problem, a large majority of people support a fully funded nationwide insulation and ventilation programme to create healthy, energy efficient homes that will slash excess deaths caused by cold, damp houses in winter.

Nearly three-quarters (72%) agree the worst insulated homes should be the priority as almost half (47%) of those polled are worried about how they will stay warm this winter, with 46% worried if they have to rely on the NHS this winter. [2]

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“The sheer numbers of people living in cold damp homes this winter should send alarm bells ringing throughout Westminster.

“These shocking figures have hardly changed since last year and with energy bills heading upwards again in January, the situation is now critical for the Government.

“The Chancellor must take two immediate steps in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Firstly, she must fully support the Warm Homes Plan with £13.2bn of funding and a commitment to help the worst insulated homes get support first.

“Then Ministers must also bring in more support for vulnerable households this winter and speed up plans to bring in a social tariff for next winter – a move that is backed by the vast majority of voters.”

Following the findings of the poll, commissioned by campaign group Warm This Winter, organisations have signed an open letter sent to Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury calling for the Government to commit to the £13.2 billion.

Warm This Winter spokesperson Caroline Simpson said: “It is shocking that whilst people are looking forward to celebrating the festivities, too many are still living in true Dickensian conditions, where cold damp homes are making them ill.

“We need to see a Government that has the ambition to create the homes people deserve and banish these appalling conditions to a bye-gone era where they belong.”

ENDS

[1] Opinium conducted an online survey of 2,000 UK adults between 22nd and 26th November 2024. Results have been weighted to be nationally representative. In 2023, there were 54,196,443 people aged 18 plus in the UK according to ONS.

[2] Opinium conducted an online survey of 2,014 UK adults between 7th and 8th October 2024. Results were weighted to be nationally and politically representative of the UK adult population.

Critically low energy usage hits fuel poor during cold weather

Some of the UK’s poorest households use 21% less energy during cold weather than other households, leaving them exposed to potentially dangerous cold damp homes, according to new research.

Research also finds that households on smart prepayment meters could not stay warm when it got really cold and became disconnected from their energy.

Those most affected were households identified as vulnerable and listed on the Priority Services Register – the sick, disabled, elderly and young.

The analysis has been conducted by a group of academics from the UCL Energy Institute, University of Oxford Environmental Change Institute and Cambridge Architectural Research.

Eoghan McKenna of the UCL Energy Institute said:

“We know that these fuel poor households are living in colder homes, and that they cut back on their heating in response to the rise in energy prices.”

Academics found that the poorest households are those least able to respond to the coldest weather and examined the Cold Weather Payments system. This pays out £25 to eligible households after there has been a week of below freezing weather, but was found that it covered less than half the extra cost of keeping warm during a cold snap.

The scheme was condemned by a House of Commons Energy Committee report as “an outdated, old-fashioned scheme.”

As reported exclusively in the Mirror, the new paper recommends that an Extreme Weather Payment system is set up that credits the energy account of all eligible households on every day that the Met Office declares the minimum temperature will be -4 degrees Celsius or lower on the following day.

The payment of £10 per day would be made in advance of the cold weather, on a daily basis. It should be available to all vulnerable households to offset the extra cold and existing fuel poverty.

Dr Tina Fawcett of the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, said:

“This simple change, which will not be expensive, will help households stay warm when it really matters. It will ensure the Government can deliver the right support at the right time.”

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented:

“Exposure to critically low levels of energy use in fuel poor households means that they are not heating their homes to an adequate level – leaving them to live in cold, damp conditions.

“While energy saving through better insulation and ventilation of properties is part of the long term solution to people living in cold damp homes, we need emergency support for households for foreseeable winters.

“For a Chancellor suffering from the political fallout from the Winter Fuel Payment cuts, a modern, updated, compassionate level of support during cold weather should be an obvious step to take.”

Jason Palmer from Cambridge Architectural Research and UCL added:

“It is extremely worrying that households in fuel poverty are cutting energy use compared to other households when it is coldest. This puts their health, and ultimately their lives, at risk.”

ENDS

Brief report available to download: Cold Weather Payments Analysis