This blog was initially posted on the Fair By Design website
Most sectors are filled with jargon. The consumer protection and anti-poverty spaces are no different. At Fair By Design, we rely on a glossary of terms that make complete sense to us but might seem very alien to others. Terms like inclusive design and financial inclusion mean different things to different people, and none more so than when it comes to ‘lived experience’, a term we use often, but which can mean different things to different people.
One of our core goals at Fair By Design is for our work to be shaped and informed by those who experience the poverty premium. To us, this means people who experience the poverty premium are part of our decision-making and at the heart of what we do.
With this in mind, this year we have worked with The Poverty Alliance to establish a Lived Experience Advisory Panel. The panel is made up of a diverse group of 15 people from across Great Britain.
In a recent session with the panel, we wanted to understand whether terms such as ‘lived experience’ and ‘expert by experience’ resonate with them? This blog is a summation of the key themes from that session and a further blog-writing session with four members of the panel, quotes from the panel are featured throughout the blog.
No one term is perfect for everyone
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when we spoke to the panel, the key theme from our discussion was that no one term is perfect for everyone. Many people were happy with the terms lived experience or expert by experience. These terms were seen as interchangeable, positive and as respectful to those involved.
Crucially some panel members highlighted that not only do they have lived experience of poverty themselves, but they also have experience of helping others in their community, both informally and through their employment e.g. as a social worker.
“Having first hand experience of the issue or the system in terms of how we can change it for the better is important. It is almost about being qualified enough to speak about the issue and the problem because we have that first hand experience. Creating a solution for a problem can only happen if the people it intends to serve are the wheel that turns it.”
However the term was not perfect for all, one particular moment of reflection for us was when one of the panel members said that they did not mind the term, but it can also feel painful, like a kind of mockery, when the system puts you in a disadvantaged position and then asks you how it feels to live through that experience.
Others felt that it diminished their role in campaigning against poverty, they had more to offer than just their experience and preferred to be called anti-poverty campaigners.
“It means being able to shape future policy and law with our input to the powers that be, whereas before our input wasn’t really considered. That’s what it means to me, my opportunity to talk about how and where policies, procedures and law can be improved because of my experience.”
Several people preferred the term ‘panel member’ as it does not divulge too much about what they are going through and has a sense of equality across everyone working in the sector. We are all working together to create change so we should use terms and structures that give our contributions equal standing.
“When I use the term lived experience sometimes, I feel like I owe it to people to explain my suffering or trauma and I guess it gives people permission to ask questions about my own experience that I haven’t necessarily given consent to. If I say panel member, I can choose to divulge however much I want.”
Lived experience is more about the way you do it
Interestingly, all participants emphasised that good lived experience contribution wasn’t just about the right terms and much more about creating a space for people to share their experiences.
For one panel member, lived experience was her opportunity to get her voice heard and feel safe within the structure of the group. Part of that experience was belonging to a diverse community, where differences in faith, colour, and lifestyle were respected. She described the work as cathartic, not just because it allowed her to speak, but because it challenged the systems that create these circumstances in the first place.
“Four things spring to mind when working in the group, nourishing, cathartic, meaningful and transformative. Those are the four words I think of when we do group work.”
The feeling was that lived experience work should be an opportunity to create safe spaces, where people feel respected, and their beliefs and feelings are heard. People told us that sharing can be therapeutic and an opportunity for individuals to not feel alone. For this group of people, the way of doing lived experience needed to be one that respected them and their lives.
Finally, it was clear that the system has placed people in a situation where they are in poverty, but this is not their only, or even their main, identity: The panel are teachers, mothers and friends first.
In addition to this, many people on the panel haven’t always experienced poverty, life events led to them becoming financially vulnerable, but this isn’t a fixed identity.
Others said that they were in full time work, but the conventional view of their role in the group could mean people assumed they weren’t working at all, lapsing into a lazy stereotype around people in poverty.
This is always going to be something we revisit
This conversation made clear that this cannot become a ‘box ticking’ exercise and that successfully incorporating lived experience into policy design and campaigning means creating opportunities to have ongoing conversations.
What feels right for panel members in their lives today may feel different tomorrow and next year. This is especially true as we work through a journey with people of telling their stories and experiences.
Through capacity building sessions put on by Poverty Alliance, supporting them with media training and understanding the parliamentary process, they can be changemakers outside of the group. They may join the panel as a lived experience panel member but could leave it as an anti-poverty campaigner, who does not only share their experience but also shape policies as their expertise evolves.
As one of our panel members said: “I want to keep revisiting these terms to re-evaluate what we’re looking at and making sure voices are only not just included but actively listened to and boundaries are respected, that this work doesn’t expose trauma without care and support. It is about making sure lived experience is recognised not just as through the “sharing a story,” but as a form of expertise that can change systems.”
Conclusion
The session reminded us that we shouldn’t look to fix our language. For our panel, lived experience isn’t just a term, it is about feeling respected and part of meaningful policy changes. It is clear that lived experience encompasses so much more than language, it is about an approach that values people’s time, experiences and allows them to be heard. We will keep revisiting these conversations because the words we use are important and should continue to reflect the people behind them.
“Working in the group feels collaborative, it feels like a weaving together of different people’s realities, but that helps us to think deeply and respect each other’s truths. It feels to me personally validating that to know my experiences are not just being politely heard but being genuinely valued as part of something bigger.” Fair By Design Lived Experience Panel Member.
28th April 2025 – there’s a feeling of excited tension as Fair By Design and Poverty Alliance staff log into a Teams meeting room at 9:45. It’s not often a Monday morning meeting has us excited, but this one feels a little different.
As the clock ticks over to 10:00, 15 people join the call and meet each other for the first time – these 15 people are our new lived experience advisory group. The group will draw on their experience of the poverty premium – the extra costs faced by people on low incomes – to help guide our work.
Over the course of two hours, everyone introduces themselves, we hear what has made people smile in the last week and get to know each other’s pets. Shared values and motivations for taking part come to the fore as we discuss the purpose of this group.
It’s clear there is a feeling of frustration, and sadness at other panel members’ difficulties with benefits and companies who haven’t supported them in the way they should have. But overwhelmingly, there’s a shared sense that things need to change.
Who’s around the table
The panel is made up of 15 people from across Great Britain, with representation from England, Wales and Scotland.
It includes a diverse range of people to ensure those most disproportionately affected by the poverty premium are represented. We know that some communities are particularly at risk of paying a poverty premium for household essentials, so we’ve made sure that there’s good representation from those communities on our panel.
The aim is to create a safe, supportive and collaborative environment where everyone feels empowered to contribute their experience and knowledge of poverty-related issues.
Support and training will be provided to help build confidence in speaking up – whether to politicians, the media, or in meetings.
Panel members are being reimbursed for their time, with options on how they receive this. We understand not everyone wants financial compensation, so other benefits are available. This is our way of recognising the value their lived expertise brings to our work.
What we’re going to do together
Over the next year, the panel will meet five times to help shape and guide our work. It will sit alongside our existing governance structures, our steering group and the Barrow Cadbury Trust Board.
The panel’s experience will input into all areas of our work. This will include helping us set priorities by identifying which issues are affecting people most, what we should focus on, and what we might be missing.
They will also help shape our policy work by advising where further research is needed and what type of work we should undertake.
In addition, panel members will guide our research by working alongside academics and staff from other organisations to help shape individual research projects.
We’ll also support those who are comfortable sharing their voices and lived expertise through blogs, videos, social media, media interviews, or public speaking.
Conclusion
We have a strong track record of working with people with lived experience in our communications and policy work. But we want to go further – making lived experience a central part of shaping our strategic work.
Over the next year, the voices and experiences of these 15 people will be at the heart of everything we do. Keep an eye on our work to see how their insight is helping shape change.
If you’d like to learn more about the process, or how to set up a similar panel, please get in touch.
Fair By Design outlines key principles for a future energy system that is fair to those on low incomes
Today, energy prices are still around 45% higher than winter 2021-22, with an estimated 6.1 million households living in fuel poverty across the UK. This is also born out in debt statistics – consumer energy debt reached £3.82 billion at the end of Q3 2024, according to Ofgem.
As the Government looks to reform the market and support the transition to net zero, at Fair By Design we think there is an opportunity to design a system that works for everyone, especially people on low incomes who are most prominent in the statistics above.
This blog highlights our thinking on the future of energy, especially focusing on how a new system can work for low-income consumers and reduce some of those sobering numbers. With numerous consultations and calls for evidence currently taking place, not least the Government’s consultation on an update to the Fuel Poverty Strategy, here we outline key principles for a future energy system that is fair to consumers on low incomes:
- Energy should be treated as an essential good, not a luxury.
- Everyone should have access to the energy they need to stay safe and well at a price they can afford. This means designing a market without poverty premiums — where people on the lowest incomes aren’t charged more because they pay differently or lack the digital tools needed to access cheaper tariffs.
- It also means reducing the amount of energy people need to use, by supporting energy efficiency.
- Affordability must never rely on people dangerously rationing the energy they need to stay warm, cook meals, or keep the lights on.
How should the future look like?
As the domestic energy market evolves, we are calling for a commitment from Government and the regulator that there will be no new poverty premiums in the future.
More broadly, trust in the energy market must be rebuilt. That means addressing the basic affordability challenges people face today. We look forward to seeing Ofgem’s fully developed proposals for a debt matching/debt relief scheme to ensure people can escape the shackles of debt they found themselves in during the energy crisis. Crucially this must be accompanied by a social tariff to ensure energy is affordable going forward.
We would also like to see high standing charges reduced, and the premium charged to those who pay by standard credit eliminated. Practices like excessive back billing must be tackled, and the period for which suppliers can back bill should be reduced
There is also an opportunity through the Government’s consultation on a new fuel poverty strategy. We welcome the Government’s commitment to review progress towards the statutory 2030 fuel poverty target. We support retaining this target and urge the Government to fulfil its promise to invest £13.2 billion in the Warm Homes Plan at the next Spending Review. With National Energy Action identifying an £18 billion funding gap, this investment will be vital to ensuring homes are made more energy efficient and affordable to heat. Improving energy efficiency is one of the most sustainable long-term ways to bring down bills and ensure a fairer energy future for everyone.
A fair transition to net zero
We must design a system that works for everyone from the outset. That starts with building a stronger evidence base about how market reforms will impact different groups of consumers.
The rollout of smart meters is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Without one, consumers may be unable to access time-of-use tariffs or new flexibility services in the future. But the current target, to achieve a rollout to 75% of households is set to end in 2025 . Depending on if this figure is met, there is a risk of locking a significant proportion of households — including many on low incomes — out of the new energy market. The smart meter roll out must be extended before the end of this year.
In addition, the shift to net zero assumes that consumers will engage more actively with the market — by switching between tariffs or flexing their usage to take advantage of lower prices at off-peak times. But we know that many consumers do not proactively engage with the energy market.
In 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority found that 56% of consumers had never switched supplier or didn’t know if they had, and 72% had never switched tariff or didn’t know it was possible. People on low incomes were even less likely to be “active” consumers. Research by the University of Bristol (2016) for Fair By Design found that 73% of low-income households had not switched supplier in the previous two years.
More recent analysis by the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) shows that low-income households gain very little from reducing demand at peak times. Innovative tariffs may be too complex or simply inaccessible to people without smart meters, digital skills, or flexible incomes. At present, the cheapest unit rates and standing charges are often only available to those who own electric vehicles — not those struggling with their bills. CSE has therefore highlighted the opportunity to support fuel-poor households to increase their usage at times of excess generation and low prices, not just encourage high-use consumers to reduce demand at peak times.
Finally, we believe Ofgem should carry out a full distributional analysis of the move to market-wide half-hourly settlement, using insights from existing pilots and building where there is evidence of disadvantage, Government and regulator must act to mitigate those disadvantages – not wait to pick up the pieces afterwards.
In conclusion, to build a fairer energy market, we must design policies around the needs of people on low incomes. That means removing poverty premiums, tackling existing inequalities, and ensuring no one is left behind in the transition to net zero. The future must be fair and affordable for all.
