Today in the Money blog: Ticketmaster is changing how it sells tickets after a CMA investigation; HMRC can now take debt owed direct from your bank; we assess whether it’s better to put money into savings or a pension; and Patrick Vallance says medicine prices will rise.
Thursday 25 September 2025 12:30, UK
By Victoria Seabrook, climate reporter
People struggling with energy bills could save an average of £255 a year by installing batteries, a trial has found.
E.ON Next, which ran the pilot with Coventry City Council, said rolling it out to fuel-poor homes nationwide would help the government meet its election pledge to shave £300 off their bills – one that is expected to be difficult to achieve.
Five million households are deemed to be in “deep fuel poverty” – spending more than 20% of their income on energy. And the government is trying to make the electricity system more flexible, as intermittent renewable power replaces gas.
In the trial, 18 homes struggling with bills were fitted with batteries, which charged up at times when power was cheap because demand was low.
They could then draw on that battery whenever they needed it.
This system, combined with a tariff that rewarded people for using electricity at cheap times, saved homes an average of £255 a year, rising to £415 for big families, the analysis found.
‘Significant impact on energy costs’
“It has actually made a significant impact on my energy costs, and I’m now reassured and very grateful to be part of the scheme,” one participant sais.
The batteries would also help spread out demand for power throughout the day, avoiding crunch time at teatime, something the National Grid is finding hard to balance without gas power, which can be ramped up and down to meet demand.
E.ON, which installs the batteries, wants the scheme to go nationwide.
It commissioned an analysis that found £600m of investment from the government could save 250,000 vulnerable households a combined £753m a year.
With the government cash-strapped, it is not clear where this money could come from. However, E.ON said the investment would be a rapid way for ministers to make good on their election promise.
A spokesperson for E.ON said: “Government has pledged a £300 reduction in energy bills by 2030… as just one example, combining batteries and time of use tariffs for the most vulnerable UK households could provide tangible financial savings averaging £255 per home, but keep benefiting residents for decades.”
However, Liam Hardy, from the thinktank Green Alliance, said it could be “better value for money to deploy large-scale batteries in the grid, rather than in people’s homes”.
Each home battery costs about £7,000, but they do have the advantage of “being deployable very quickly, even tomorrow”, he said, and would recoup even more savings if combined with an electric heat pump.
Jess Ralston, from the thinktank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said the government’s upcoming Warm Homes Plan was “an opportunity to lay out how it will incentivise those that can afford upgrades to invest, and how it plans to ensure that low-income households can access the benefits that net zero tech offer”.
Sky News has asked the government’s energy department with a for a comment.
Tax inspectors are once again taking money they’re owed directly from people’s bank accounts if they have failed to pay but can afford to do so.
The policy had been paused since the start of the pandemic, but was reintroduced on Monday for a “test and learn” phase.
Direct recovery of debts requires banks and building societies to pay HMRC directly from a debtor’s account and/or funds held in cash ISAs, when they owe £1,000 or more.
Safeguards ensure that debtors do not suffer undue hardship and that protection is in place for vulnerable customers, the revenue body said.
Payments may only be taken if:
An HMRC spokesperson said: “Most people pay tax on time and in full – but it’s right that we seek to recover tax from the tiny minority who have the funds to pay, but refuse to.
“These powers are subject to robust safeguards and we’ll continue to support customers who need help with their payments.”
They’re usually eventful – you can watch live at the top of the page and we’ll bring you any significant lines here in the blog.
Increasing the price the NHS pays for medicines will be “necessary”, the science minister has said.
Lord Vallance, recognisable from daily briefings during the COVID pandemic, said “the Trump factor” was a large driver, with the US president “seeking greater parity” on pricing.
American drugmaker Merck said its UK operation would scrap plans for a £1bn site in London and blamed the British government for paying too little for medicines and not investing enough in the sector.
AstraZeneca also announced it has paused plans to invest £200m at a Cambridge research site.
“There’s absolutely day-by-day discussions going on, including with industry, including with the US, to try to come to a solution here that’s right for innovation, right for getting companies into the UK, and right for patients in the NHS,” Lord Vallance told the BBC.
“I’ve got no doubt we’ll come to some arrangement which gets to the right position on this, because we have to – I think price increases are going to be a necessary part of what we need to do to get to a solution which will benefit patients.”
The head of the competition watchdog says it has “fixed” the ticket sales process after its Oasis investigation into Ticketmaster.
Emma Cochrane, head of the consumer protection at the Competition and Markets Authority, has been speaking to us on Sky News.
Watch her explain what changes the watchdog has asked Ticketmaster to make, with presenters Kamali Melbourne and Leah Boleto…
Ticketmaster has agreed to change how it sells tickets after a competition watchdog investigation into how it sold Oasis tickets.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found two areas of concern in how Ticketmaster sold tickets to the long-anticipated Oasis reunion tour.
These were:
Following the investigation, Ticketmaster have agreed to:
Ticketmaster must also provide regular reports to the CMA over the next two years.
Separate to the CMA report, Ticketmaster have now stopped using “platinum” labels in the UK.
The CMA reiterated that they had found no evidence of dynamic pricing – a form of surge pricing.
The watchdog said they hope the measures will send a “clear message” to other ticketing websites, adding: “If Ticketmaster fails to deliver on these changes, we won’t hesitate to take further action.”
Ticketmaster have made the changes voluntarily, and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability.
Watch our arts and entertainment correspondent Katie Spencer report on the latest here…
The CMA launched its investigation after widespread complaints about the sale that saw over 900,000 tickets purchased through the site.
Some ended up paying as much as £355 for tickets originally advertised for £148, prompting questions over so-called dynamic pricing – a form of surge pricing where costs can rise depending on levels of demand.
The CMA had made it clear, in an update in March, that it was seeking a series of remedies that were yet to be agreed.
It explained then that Ticketmaster labelled certain seated tickets as “platinum” and sold them for nearly two-and-a-half times the price of equivalent standard tickets, without explaining why they were more expensive.
It found that it “risked giving consumers the misleading impression that platinum tickets were better”.
The regulator also concluded that Ticketmaster did not inform fans that there were two categories of standing tickets at different prices, but it said there was no evidence that dynamic pricing was used.
In a statement, Tickemaster said:
“We welcome the CMA’s confirmation there was no dynamic pricing, no unfair practices and that we did not breach consumer law. To further improve the customer experience, we’ve voluntarily committed to clearer communication about ticket prices in queues. This builds on our capped resale, strong bot protection, and clear pricing displays – and we encourage the CMA to hold the entire industry to these same standards.”
Sky News has launched a free Money newsletter, bringing the kind of content you enjoy here in the Money blog directly to your inbox.
Each Friday, subscribers get exclusive money-saving tips and features from the team behind the award-winning Money blog, which is read by millions of Britons every month.
Sign up today, and this week you’ll find the following in the newsletter:
So join our growing Money community – and thanks to the tens of thousands of you who already have.
More now from the survey of Britain’s richest people that we told you about earlier…
Almost one in five high-net-worth parents whose children were at private school before VAT was imposed on fees have moved them to a different school, according to the report.
The tax began applying to private school fees in January, and since then, 9% of wealthy parents have moved their children to a less expensive private school, while 5% have put them in state education.
Another 2% home-schooled them and 2% moved them to a private school abroad, the Saltus Wealth Index survey found.
It’s worth pointing out that this survey is of high earners – but not everyone who sends their child to private school falls into this category. Those earning less are more likely to have withdrawn their kids – so the above figures may be an underestimation.
This stat may help provide some clarity: Private school pupils make up 6.4% of the total school population, down from 6.5% last year, separate school census data recorded in June shows.
Here’s a breakdown of how respondents said they had paid for the extra costs…
A further 20% of rich parents say they will remove their child from their current school in future.
Of those, 11% say they will send them to a cheaper private school, 4% to a school abroad and 3% to a state school.
The Saltus Wealth Index defines high net worth individuals as people with £250,000 in investible assets, besides their primary home.
With the government attempting to grapple with the state of the economy, some campaign groups have pushed for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to raise taxes once more.
In April, we saw increases to employer national insurance, electric vehicle duties and stamp duty.
Many – including government ministers – have said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the most weight of any tax increases, but high net worth individuals (HNWI) have complained some are unreasonably heavy.
A new report shows nearly a quarter (24%) of people with £250,000 in investible assets (besides their primary home) think taxes on the higher rates of income are the most unreasonable.
Earners are taxed 40% on income over £50,271 and 45% on income over £125,140.
Inheritance tax came second (17%) among those taxes HNWIs felt were most unfair, followed by VAT (9%), according to the Saltus Wealth Index.
The same people put employer national insurance and corporation tax as the most damaging taxes when it comes to growth.
Confidence jumps
Despite all of the above, confidence in the economy has risen dramatically among HNWIs since a January slump.
Some 66% said they were confident, up from 48%.
Among those aged under 34, this number is boosted to 81% – more than five times the proportion of over 55s (15%).
The rise in optimism has been concentrated in the East of England, West Midlands and North West of England, while being substantially more muted in Wales and the North East.
Top three concerns
But HNWIs see threats on the horizon, too.
Some 58% of them now list inflation as the largest threat to their wealth, up from 52%.
Tax changes are the second most pressing concern (46%).
Cybersecurity has climbed the ranks as the third-biggest anxiety, with it now seen as a bigger threat to wealth than geopolitical instability.
The report found 29% of HNWIs flagged cyber risks as a major concern, likely influenced by recent high-profile breaches at Co-op and Marks & Spencer.
In a special edition of the savings guide, April Leeson, financial adviser at The Private Office, discusses whether earners should pay into pensions or savings accounts, alongside our usual top rates tables…
The balance between how much you deposit into a pension or cash savings depends heavily on what stage of life you are in, how much you can afford and what access you might need and when.
It’s advantageous for younger people to prioritise pensions for long-term growth because compound returns over decades mean they can afford to take more equity risk.
But savings should still be maintained as an emergency fund (with a pot worth three to six months of your expenses recommended).
Cash can also be vital for expenses like saving for a deposit on a home.
For people in middle age, balance becomes key.
It’s important to keep building pensions but also to increase savings to create a buffer against risk when you begin making withdrawals.
You would normally earn more as your career develops, so you should have more available to put into your pension, and you could benefit even more from tax relief.
Cash savings are essential for retirees for covering short-term living costs, enjoying their retirement years and future healthcare needs.
Pensions remain important for long-term income, but withdrawals must be managed carefully so that you don’t unwittingly pay too much tax.
For a look at the best up-to-date savings options, see below – or scroll down to find out more about the pros and cons of savings v pensions…
Advantages of pensions
Long-term growth: Investments within pensions can usually outperform cash savings over the long run, helping to keep pace with or to beat inflation.
Tax benefits: Pension contributions usually receive tax relief at the basic rate of income tax or your own marginal rate, boosting the amount invested.
So, for each £80 invested, you’ll receive £20 tax relief. If you’re a higher rate or additional rate taxpayer, you can claim back the extra from HMRC through self-assessment.
You can save on national insurance contributions by contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice, too.
If you were to die before age 75, a pension can provide longer-term income tax benefits for your beneficiaries.
Pension funds grow tax-free: All returns are free of income tax (until you withdraw), as well as capital gains tax and dividend tax.
Company contributions: Your employer will pay into your pension, too.
Retirement income: Pensions are designed specifically to provide an income in retirement, for you and your spouse (on death), through structured withdrawal strategies, with a quarter of the pension being entirely tax-free – as a tax-free cash lump sum – up to a maximum of £268,275.
Disadvantages of pensions
Access restrictions: You usually cannot access pension funds until a set age.
Market risks: Investment returns fluctuate. Timing withdrawals badly can erode value.
Complexity: Managing pension investments often requires careful planning and regular reviews, as legislation changes and allowances move around.
Advantages of savings
Liquidity: Cash savings are immediately accessible, useful for emergencies or short-term needs.
Short-term returns: Higher interest rates mean cash savings
have become more attractive.
Personal Savings Allowance: For basic-rate taxpayers, up to £1,000 of interest can be earned tax-free per year. It’s £500 for higher-rate taxpayers.
Disadvantages of savings
Inflation risk: Over time, cash can lose value in real terms.
Taxable interest: Interest on large savings can push earners into a higher tax bracket without realising.
Lower returns: Savings accounts do not grow wealth like
investments or pensions do.
According to JP Morgan Asset Management, cash has been the worst-performing asset class against inflation since 1900.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
