Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

backfoot wrote: »

Thank you for this report. I am interested to learn more.

Is it possible to break down the issue a bit more please?

What is the customer wanting to happen? Presumably in place of the prepayment meter that Npower have already fitted?

Is the issue that NPower were the last supplier and are assuming the right to supply a new customer?

What is the £240,000 counter claim in respect of? How is it made up?

Could you summarise the overall case and what is at stake,implications etc. in layman's terms as much as possible please.

Are there any other links?

Thank you:).

Unfortunately in the time it toook to type I was automatically logged out & the post lost because I logged back in (as asked). Perhaps I'll try again another day but haven't got time to do it again now I'm afraid

jauntyangle wrote: »

Would you happen to be the 'vulnerable' customer in this case?

The customer is known to me but I did not say it was me, or that I would identify them nor indeed did I identify the Npower employees involved. What purpose would that serve?

In brief the claim is made up of bills raised by Npower for electricity and sundry costs / charges. As I understand it so far the claim will predominently rely upon the electricty act.

When the transfer was blocked the customer informed Npower that they would accept no liability for any charges beyond what the chosen supplier would have raised & would pay nothing more until the dispute was resolved in Court.

Npower decided "you will have to pay us in the end" (said to be a direct quote from a telephone conversation with one Npower employee) and simply continued supplying for approximately 3 years with no payments & despite the customer remaining in contact reiterating their stance repeatedly & being unmoved by Npowers claims that they would disconnect supply much earlier.

The customer advised they would have to disconnect but may not fit a PPM. Npower sought to ignore this (unsuccessfully)

The Energy Ombudsman earlier suggested that if the balance was reduced to £200 the customer should be free to switch supply. The customer was not able to do so at that time and refused to accept Npower remaining as supplier. The usual timescale elapsed though Npower claimed they would honour this long after.

When the consumer later offered and immediate payment of £800 and / or approximately £1442 (based on what chosen supplier might have billed, correspondence to Npower etc) in full and final settlement within 7 days (with third party assistance) against an (estimated) balance of £1559 Npower ignored it having by now declared "we will fit a pre payment meter"

Fuel Direct was never offered

Npower claimed to MP & Courts that they were planning to do so & take the lowest possible payments meaning they would have potentially taken at least 9 years to recover the claimed balance. The customer told them only a moron would consider that a better option for them & again refused to accept Npower remaining as supplier (under any kind of meter whatsoever) Correspondence from Npower to customer also suggests the above suggestion to be totally untrue.

The defence cited a range of legislation, including "undue influence",
Distance selling regulations 2000, Electricity Act 1989 & Utilities Act of 2000, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 & the European Union Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 & 1994, The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008, The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, The Competition Act 1998, The Human Rights Act, The Administration of Justice Act, Electricity suppliers Licence: Standard Conditions, Ofgem & Energy watch criticisisms of Npowers handling of such disputes

The counter claim is based upon the customers instructions to remove all equipment from their property and Npowers refusal to do so. The customer advised Npower that whilst the meter remained on their property without consent they would be charged £25 per day for the first week, £50 per day the second, £75 the third and so on escalating each week until either the issuies was resolved, eg meter was removed as instructed, the supply switched elsewhere etc. Npower have at various points claimed that the customer must prove they own the meter, that they have not disconnected the supply but merely removed the fuse (their own terms & conditions state that a deemed contract may be terminated by disconnection of supply). Customer has claimed damges, a form of trespass, statutory & common law nuiscence

Ofgem said there was nothing within the act that obliged a supplier to withdraw from a property if a customer instructed it. Reluctantly they also had to admit that nor is there anything that allows them to refuse to do so


Npower claim that whilst they can deem a contract on consumers consumers cannot deem one upon them in this fashion.

Their legal representative has made statements in Court hearings ranging from the defence having been well put together to claiming they were being polite & it being shambolic / nonsense

The consumer is seeking legal help but with no access to legal aid, no solicitor so far being willing to look at the issues pro bono let alone take on a large trial on such a basis has so far been forced to fight the dispute alone.

Npowers legal representative has suddenly suggested contacting Law works - because they don't really want to go to trial either? - who is apparently assisting another consumer of theirs about 70 miles away but they have refused the consumers suggestion of taking it to mediation throughout the dispute.

The Daily Mail money page was at an earlier point (prior to any court claim or disconnection) contacted for possible help & whether by this reason or workload as they claim Npowers agents failed to turn up to fit a PPM / disconnect the supply for approximately 2 weeks afterwards but other than a presumably standard reply from the Mail suggesting they may take up the issue in future there was no serious response & the media have not been made aware of the disputes progression. There has therefore obviously been no press coverage of the dispute.

The supposedly key witness was a (presumably) senior employee who was involved in contact with the consumers MP and states they have posession of the file but has had no direct contact with the customer whatsoever. Why that person was chosen as the nominated "witness" rather than one of the employees who dealt directly with the consumer is unclear to me.

As to what is at stake, for the consumer to lose costs could quite possibly mean loss of their home / bankruptcy

To win probably significant damages & the pleasure of having taught Npower some manners!

For Npower to lose, A significant counter claim, extremely poor PR in threatening bankrupting a struggling consumer who made reasonable offers of settlement?, serious legal question marks over the entire deemed contract / transfer objection system?

For Npower to win confirmation of their interpretation of their "rights" but possibly incurring costs they may be unable to recover

Why this dispute has not been settled sensibly is utterly beyond me