Energy vulnerability rarely announces itself neatly. It may first appear as a missed bill, a customer who stops engaging, a repayment plan that quietly becomes unmanageable, or a household trying to stay connected while dealing with illness, family disruption, job\u00a0loss\u00a0or broader financial pressure. By the time a customer formally asks for help, the situation may already have escalated.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Access to energy is an essential service, underpinning health,\u00a0safety\u00a0and the ability to\u00a0participate\u00a0fully in everyday life. When access to that service becomes unstable, the consequences are not just financial. They can affect wellbeing, housing security and, in some cases, physical safety.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For most households, access to energy is straightforward. But when circumstances change, the ability to stay connected and keep up with bills can quickly become more complex. It is at this point that retailers become a critical interface between the system and the customer.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Within the energy sector, the term \u201cvulnerable customers\u201d is often used to describe those who may face difficulty paying their bills or navigating services. In practice, however, vulnerability is not a fixed group or category. It is a set of circumstances that can affect anyone at different points in time. It arises where a person\u2019s capacity to manage their energy needs is reduced, whether due to income shocks, illness, family\u00a0disruption\u00a0or broader financial pressure.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Over time, both regulators and retailers in Australia have introduced a range of measures to support customers who may be struggling to manage their energy bills. These include requirements to offer payment plans, provide access to hardship programs, protect customers from disconnection in certain circumstances and ensure that\u00a0assistance\u00a0is available when customers reach out.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Together, these efforts reflect a sustained focus in Australia on improving outcomes for customers experiencing vulnerability. They also illustrate an important shift in thinking: from\u00a0establishing\u00a0protections in principle, to understanding how those protections\u00a0operate\u00a0in practice.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The lesson from the United Kingdom is not that Australia lacks rules. It is that rules need operating models behind them. Early warning systems, flexible repayment pathways, trained staff, trusted referral\u00a0partners\u00a0and continuity of care all shape whether support\u00a0actually reaches\u00a0customers in time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK experience is therefore instructive. It shows that the real test is not whether protections exist, but whether they are delivered early enough, flexibly enough and humanely enough to make a difference.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK Experience\u00a0<\/p>\n
The United Kingdom has been grappling with how best to support energy consumers experiencing vulnerability for more than a decade. Over that time, vulnerability has increasingly been understood not as a fixed customer status, but as something that can arise quickly when circumstances change.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A sudden loss of income, illness, family\u00a0disruption\u00a0or broader financial pressure can move a household into difficulty with little warning. As UK charities have\u00a0observed, many households have limited capacity to absorb shocks, meaning relatively\u00a0small changes\u00a0can escalate rapidly.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As these insights became more visible, there was growing recognition that improving outcomes would require more than\u00a0establishing\u00a0formal protections. It would depend on how effectively those protections were delivered in practice, particularly in terms of timing,\u00a0coordination\u00a0and the overall customer experience.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The result of this thinking included the introduction of Energy UK\u2019s Vulnerability Commitment, a principles-based agreement (and\u00a0accompanying\u00a0operational guidance) to support consumers experiencing vulnerability,\u00a0signed off by energy retailers. By 2025, the industry-wide commitment had signatories covering over 95 per cent of UK households. These companies report on how they\u00a0identify\u00a0and\u00a0assist\u00a0vulnerable customers beyond\u00a0minimum\u00a0requirements. Each year, an independent panel publishes Good Practice Guides highlighting what is working, from new data tools to partnerships with charities, as well as where gaps\u00a0remain. Ofgem, the UK regulator, also now also embeds the Commitment into its broader strategy, collaborating with Energy UK to\u00a0identify\u00a0best practice and areas for improvement.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, it is important to note that the United Kingdom did not arrive at its current approach overnight. Ofgem\u2019s Consumer Vulnerability Strategy has been updated several times, including in 2013, 2019 and 2025, as evidence and circumstances changed. Alongside regulatory guidance, the industry\u2019s own Vulnerability Commitment has been steadily strengthened through annual reviews.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Instead of instigating one-off sweeping reform, the UK model has\u00a0operated\u00a0as a continuous learning process, with regulators, suppliers, charities and consumer groups sharing data and insights to gradually refine best practice. Early on, the emphasis was on defining who is vulnerable. Now, both Ofgem and the sector stress that vulnerability is not a fixed label, but an outcome of circumstances that can change over time. Ofgem guidance notes that \u201cvulnerability is about the situations in which consumers are in, rather than about the individual per se\u201d and that vulnerability can often be transitory as circumstances change.\u00a0<\/p>\n
This evolution matters because customers experiencing distress often do not\u00a0identify\u00a0themselves as vulnerable. Indicators of difficulty may appear indirectly, for example,\u00a0through missed payments, reduced engagement, changing energy usage or repeated unsuccessful contact. The UK\u2019s experience shows that, even where rules and programs are in place, outcomes depend heavily on when and how help is delivered.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK experience\u00a0reveals several themes:\u00a0<\/p>\n
1. Timing of support<\/p>\n
UK suppliers have increasingly emphasised early intervention because customers rarely flag vulnerability proactively. Instead, retailers may need to\u00a0monitor\u00a0indirect signals, such as a series of missed bills, reduced engagement, changed usage patterns or other indicators that a customer\u2019s circumstances may have shifted.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the course of\u00a0developing the UK Vulnerability Commitment, suppliers repeatedly told Energy UK\u2019s expert panel that they struggled to \u201cengage early enough\u201d to help before problems spiralled out of control. This has led to a marked shift in practice. UK suppliers now use local outreach events, partnerships with councils and third-sector agencies and increasingly sophisticated data tools to\u00a0identify\u00a0customers who may be at risk. The purpose of this is not simply to improve debt collection; it is to catch\u00a0problems,\u00a0 before\u00a0debt snowballs. Ofgem\u2019s guidance now also aligns with this: it encourages suppliers to act quickly on debt by\u00a0establishing\u00a0repayment plans\u00a0early, when\u00a0balances are lower and more likely to be manageable for customers.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Recent data from the\u00a0UKis\u00a0instructive. Total household energy debt in Britain surged to \u00a34.4 billion by 2024, up from under \u00a31 billion in 2021. At the same time, the proportion of customers carrying large arrears, particularly without any repayment plan, has increased. The lesson here is clear: older and larger debt is more challenging to resolve sustainably. If support arrives only once hardship has deepened, the customer and the retailer are both left trying to repair a more difficult problem.\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. Workable payment support\u00a0<\/p>\n
Insights from the UK have highlighted that standard debt collection protocols can inadvertently set customers up to fail where they do not reflect the customer\u2019s actual capacity to pay. Good practice guidance developed through the Vulnerability Commitment notes that overly rigid or aggressive repayment arrangements can collapse if a person\u2019s situation worsens.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When that happens, customers may cycle in and out of repayment plans without clearing\u00a0debt, or\u00a0disengage entirely. In response, UK suppliers have increasingly\u00a0sought\u00a0to tailor support to customers\u2019 individual circumstances and capacity. This may involve extending plan durations, allowing pauses, reviewing arrangements when circumstances change, or shifting repayment channels where\u00a0appropriate.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ofgem\u2019s guidance also highlights that best practice goes beyond minimum legal obligations. It includes proactively designing plans that customers can realistically\u00a0maintain\u00a0and routinely reviewing outcomes such as debt clearance, plan\u00a0sustainability\u00a0and customer satisfaction. The importance of structure also shows up in the context of non-financial support. Energy UK\u2019s reviews have shown that suppliers are increasingly partnering with charities and community organisations, including Citizens Advice, Mind, Age\u00a0UK\u00a0and\u00a0StepChange, so that customers can receive more holistic help alongside energy-specific support.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Arrears are often a symptom of broader difficulty. Advice services, mental health support, housing\u00a0referrals\u00a0and financial counselling can help uncover the underlying causes of hardship and reduce the risk of issues recurring. The UK experience suggests that a workable support plan is not simply a payment arrangement. It is a pathway that a customer can realistically stay on.<\/p>\n
3. Trust is part of the support model<\/p>\n
UK regulators, consumer\u00a0groups\u00a0and industry reviews have repeatedly noted that even well-intentioned programs can fail if people cannot or will not use them. Complex processes, opaque language, repeated\u00a0transfers\u00a0and inconsistent communication can erode trust, particularly for customers already under stress.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For a customer experiencing financial hardship, illness, family violence or mental health challenges, the way a retailer engages can\u00a0determine\u00a0whether they stay in contact or withdraw. The UK experience suggests that disengagement is often not a sign that a customer does not need help. It may be a sign that the pathway to help feels too difficult,\u00a0frightening\u00a0or shaming.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Alongside the Vulnerability Commitment, Ofgem\u2019s vulnerability strategy calls for clear, tailored communications and easy access to support. The Commitment\u2019s Good Practice Guides highlight the importance of training frontline staff in empathy, improving accessibility and ensuring vulnerability is understood across the business, not confined to a hardship team.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A key feature of the UK model is the use of a dedicated Vulnerability Champion. In an energy retailer, this is usually a senior person responsible for ensuring that customer vulnerability is taken seriously across the business. Under the Energy UK Vulnerability Commitment model, retailers are expected to assign a dedicated Vulnerability Champion at Senior Leadership Team level or equivalent, who can\u00a0demonstrate\u00a0how vulnerability issues are escalated to the Board.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The role is designed to keep the business response visible to senior executives and ensure vulnerability is treated as a whole-of-organisation issue.\u00a0<\/p>\n
One UK expert panel found that one supplier\u2019s specialised team acknowledged 98 per cent of vulnerable customer inquiries within two days. That type of practical service metric matters because speed, tone and clarity can all affect whether a customer\u00a0remains\u00a0engaged.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In short, the UK experience shows that when customers feel heard and supported, they are more likely to stay in contact and manage their accounts before situations worsen.\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. \u201dTell me once\u201d model\u00a0<\/p>\n
The fourth lesson is continuity. Customers experiencing vulnerability often interact with multiple parts of a retailer, including billing, payments, complaints,\u00a0hardship\u00a0and customer service. They may also be dealing with external agencies, financial counsellors, family violence services, health\u00a0providers\u00a0or housing support.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Where information does not move with the customer, support can become fragmented. The customer may have to repeatedly\u00a0disclose\u00a0sensitive or distressing information. Staff may miss important context. Relief measures may end too soon. Opportunities to intervene early may be lost.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK Vulnerability Commitment has increasingly recognised this problem through the \u201ctell me once\u201d model. This means that a customer should only have to\u00a0disclose\u00a0sensitive or difficult information once, and the organisation should then use that information appropriately across relevant teams,\u00a0systems\u00a0and processes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In an energy retail context, this means a customer should not have to repeatedly explain that they are experiencing family violence, serious illness, disability, financial\u00a0hardship\u00a0or another difficult circumstance each time they interact with a different part of the business.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Better use of data and joint industry tools can reduce this burden. For example, some UK billing systems now prominently flag Priority Services Register information, so that advisors can see relevant customer needs when dealing with an account. Other suppliers have introduced cross-functional vulnerability panels to ensure that a customer escalated in one part of the business\u00a0remains\u00a0connected to\u00a0appropriate support\u00a0elsewhere.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ofgem guidance also encourages suppliers to collaborate with peers and third parties so that support does not abruptly end at the company\u2019s doorstep.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When continuity breaks down, UK reviewers have\u00a0identified\u00a0negative outcomes: missed opportunities to intervene, customers falling between teams, and support ending before the underlying issue is resolved. By contrast, when suppliers invest in a whole-of-organisation approach, supported by senior accountability and regular outcome reviews, customers experiencing vulnerability are more likely to receive consistent and effective support.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The\u00a0theme\u00a0is simple: vulnerability support cannot depend on a customer finding the right person, using the right words, or retelling the same painful story multiple times.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Evidence from the UK\u00a0<\/p>\n
The convergence of these insights is reflected in UK-specific metrics and research. Regulators now track detailed affordability and debt indicators. Average arrears among UK households without a repayment plan climbed to \u00a31,773 for electricity and \u00a31,512 for gas by late 2025. Average debt under formal plans has also risen, to around \u00a3799 for electricity and \u00a3651 for gas. These figures reinforce the importance of early, flexible intervention. Where customers\u00a0remain\u00a0outside repayment arrangements, or enter arrangements that are not sustainable, debt can become increasingly difficult to resolve.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Research by UK charities, including Citizens Advice and Age UK, has also highlighted the problem of disengagement. Vulnerable consumers may avoid helplines or correspondence because of fear, shame,\u00a0stress\u00a0or lack of trust. This aligns with industry findings that even where help exists, customers can be difficult to reach without trusted intermediaries.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The broader lesson is that feedback loops, data-sharing and partnerships are as important as formal rules. Tracking metrics, including debt age, plan success rates, customer satisfaction, speed of response and the effectiveness of referrals, has become standard practice for leading suppliers.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK evidence confirms the pattern: late engagement means higher debt, broken\u00a0plans\u00a0and poorer outcomes. Early,\u00a0tailored\u00a0and coordinated support gives customers a better chance of stabilising their circumstances before hardship becomes crisis.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What this means for Australia\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK\u2019s approach is instructive because it shows a tested path forward. It does not suggest that Australia should simply replicate the UK model. Rather, it shows how an energy sector can move from a rules-based understanding of vulnerability toward a more practical question: how do retailers\u00a0identify,\u00a0engage\u00a0and support customers before harm escalates? Australian retailers are now considering similar principles through the possibility of an Australian Vulnerability Commitment. Such a commitment could bring leading practices to light and\u00a0provide a structured way for signatories\u00a0to share,\u00a0test\u00a0and improve approaches over time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In practice, the focus would be on how existing rules work in action. This may include early identification and intervention, manageable payment plans, collaboration with financial counsellors and community agencies, clear and supportive communication, and improved continuity across retailer systems and third-party interactions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Importantly, an Australian Vulnerability Commitment would be intended to complement, rather than replace, the existing regulatory framework. By its nature, such a commitment would be principles-based and outcome-focused. It would recognise that retailers have different systems, customer\u00a0profiles\u00a0and operating models.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What matters most is that customers get the support they need, not that every company follows the exact same script.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Over time, the real test will be whether customers experiencing vulnerability in Australia can have confidence that help will reach them in time. The lessons from the UK make clear that this requires more than good intentions. It requires structural focus on timing, flexibility,\u00a0trust\u00a0and continuity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The question is not whether customers are meant to be supported. They already are, in rules and codes. The more\u00a0difficult question\u00a0is whether support is delivered in a way that is sustainable,\u00a0respectful\u00a0and\u00a0timely.\u00a0<\/p>\n
By learning from the UK\u2019s collaborative and evidence-driven approach, Australian\u00a0retailers have\u00a0an opportunity to strengthen the practical operation of support for customers experiencing vulnerability. The aim should be simple: to ensure that energy\u00a0remains\u00a0accessible to everyone who needs it, including when life becomes hardest.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Related Analysis<\/p>\n
Analysis<\/p>\n
Network Tariff Reform: From Cost Recovery to Coordination in a High-CER System<\/a><\/p>\n Network tariff reform has shifted from a technical pricing issue to a central challenge for Australia\u2019s future energy system, shaping affordability, market design and the transition to a customer-centric grid. Recent modelling by the Australian Energy Market Commission provides a timely and valuable contribution to this debate, with one of the most consequential ideas in its Pricing Review reform package being Recommendation 6\u2014proposing that networks develop tariffs for retailers, rather than directly for end-use customers. We take a closer look at the implications. <\/p>\n Apr 30 2026<\/p>\n Analysis<\/p>\n