Atlantic price increase

Cardew

katie_-_lawyer wrote: »

I am not acting in a legal capacity on this site. I am merely trying to help fellow consumers, in the true spirit of this website. Yes I am a qualified solicitor.

Thank you.

I appreciate that you are trying to help, but in chosing your name it suggests you are offering legal advice, albeit unattributable advice, and in your initial post you clearly stated that Atlantic were unfair under the terms of the Act.

However in the 'true spirit' of an internet discussion forum how can the merits of your advice be debated?

I have made my points above, and it seems you are challenging a Government Agency by saying their directive to companies is, in essence, illegal and the companies are liable if they obey that directive.

It clearly must also be 'unfair' under the terms of the Act for Banks and Building Societies to announce cuts in interest rates for depositors or increases in mortgage rates and not inform those affected until later.

Is it not reasonable that you should comment on those points?

DirectDebacle

katie_-_lawyer wrote: »

I have given consumers the legal information that is relevant. It is up to them to contact Atlantic and to decide whether or not they are acting legally. Do you think retrospective price rises fall within the legal definition of 'fair'? Hence the Unfair Contract Terms Act - this exists to protect consumers from unfair practices.

I was wondering why you used this Act and which sections you thought best suited your argument.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs are much stronger than this 1977 Act and the latest Regs, Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regs. 2008, which came into effect in May, give much more protection to consumers than the previous two together.

Is consumer contract law your speciality. It would be most interesting to know why you chose the 1977 Act.

I recently took my supplier to task over the 65 day notification rule. They agreed to calculate all my gas from 1/4/2003 to 8/8/2008 at the price it was at 31/3/2003 and refund me the difference. Which was nice. Unfortunately as part of the deal I had to change supplier:o . So all in all I found the 65 day rule quite fair.:D

Premier_2

katie_-_lawyer wrote: »

I have given consumers the legal information that is relevant. It is up to them to contact Atlantic and to decide whether or not they are acting legally. Do you think retrospective price rises fall within the legal definition of 'fair'? Hence the Unfair Contract Terms Act - this exists to protect consumers from unfair practices.

I don't think anyone would answer in any other way to your baited question.

However, no one is being required to accept retrospective price increases. Every such notice comes with clear guidance as stipulated by Ofgem on the consumers right to not accept the price increase. However such refusal does allow the supplier to cancel the supply contract and the consumer is required therefore to switch suppliers within a specified timeframe to continue to benefit from the pre-increased prices until the contract is terminated.
If the supply is not switched, the existing supplier is expected to continue the supply but of course is within their rights to charge at the notified rates.

Kufu

The anecdotal evidence to which I referred was drawn from that posted in the thread as a whole and was offered in part as an overview of how let us say some of the energy industry suppliers react when challenged over the retrospective application of price increases to customers' energy accounts and their inclusion of estimated readings in these calculations.

In one instance an energy suppliers' billing department refused to accept a customers’ own meter reading at the point of the price change and in the face of the legislation very helpfully referenced to and reproduced by a number of contributors to this thread insisted it was the customer who was at fault only for this to be overturned and the supplier being forced to have to admit their error some time later, and adjust the bill accordingly following an investigation by Energywatch, the "confusion" being blamed on a training issue :rolleyes: .

These companies when challenged don't rollover lightly so anecdotal though they may be, one must obviously take these reports seriously if we are to avoid being caught out in similar circumstances.

Cardew, with respect my reference to the prices being “over-inflated” wasn't meant to be subtle although I graciously accept the compliment but was simply to be regarded as fair comment when set against an industry whose pricing structure is we understand linked for some reason to the price of oil which despite the astronomic price it reached earlier in the year, has we are also told more than halved in recent times.

So I guess any attempt to get this issue considered objectively largely depends on whose interests you support, consumers or the energy suppliers and their shareholders .

I'm not a lawyer but common sense tells me that when I'm told I am going to be charged Xpence more now for an product I may have consumed some months ago when it was at cheaper price, I call that a retrospective price increase and like most I consider it unfair and am likely to rail against it.

I not a licensee either but for the same reasons I don't think the landlord at my local would get way with a similar trading policy!
:beer:
Personally I am less interested in a persons 'status' than the value of their contribution which as long as it is constructive, given in good faith and designed to help or move the debate on is in my view in the true spirit of this or any other forum associated with the main site and I for one am grateful for it.

As with its originator, :money: whose good advice I assume most if not all of us make some efforts to follow every week, you RLNID or seek opinion elsewhere, editorialising portions of other peoples’ contributions often out of context or seeking their justification would seem to be somewhat self-defeating and counter productive.

reginald_2

As anyone read the terms & conditions for Atlantic gas yet. It starts This Contract and there is no mention of 65 days. It says

If we decide to increase our price, we will tell you in writing.
If you do not wish to accept this increase, you must write and
tell us within 14 days of us telling you of the change.

12.5 Nothing in this agreement affects any statutory rights you may
have under law.

No mention of when they have to tell you.

I don't know if the contract atlantic as with ofgem ie 65 days is actually law and not just a agreement between ofgem and atlantic so they can obtain a licence. If it's a contract agreement then I would not expect it to be binding on the consumer.

From my understanding of the unfair contracts legislation ( as a layperson) basically the principle is if a contract puts you at a disadvantage to the supplier then it is unfair. As Atlantic will freeze the price rise until you change then perhaps that can be considered fair. However if I change supplier I will lose my loyalty bonus and if I stay with them I will have the accept there backdated price increase. If they had notified me at the time of the price increase then I would have been able to act and try to reduce my energy needs.
I therefore think the contract is unfair because

I lose out either way finacially due to not being able to switch supplier without losing my loyalty bonus (discount) or stay with them and pay the backdated increase. Atlantic gain extra revenue either way only I lose out -unfair

If I was not notified at the time of the price increase It would have given me the opportunity to reduce my gas & electricty usage. By keeping the increase secret they mislead me for two months on the true cost of my energy needs. The reason for this delay must be to their benefit and to my disadvantage and must be to reasons other that the cost of the product as they know the price they have to pay well in advance I assume. So what reason can they have to delay so long before they to inform us knowing of the disadvantge it puts on the consumer?

Views of a non legal person

DirectDebacle

reginald wrote: »

As anyone read the terms & conditions for Atlantic gas yet. It starts This Contract and there is no mention of 65 days. It says

If we decide to increase our price, we will tell you in writing.
If you do not wish to accept this increase, you must write and
tell us within 14 days of us telling you of the change.

12.5 Nothing in this agreement affects any statutory rights you may
have under law.

Views of a non legal person

You make some valid points. I am a non legal person but as far as I know the 65 day rule is in the Standard Licence Conditions which are part of the Gas Act, 1986.

It would seem that if the consumers statutory rights are not affected then the same would apply to Atlantic. An Act of Parliament imposes the 65 day rule. Only Ofgem or a court would be able to decide if Atlantic were in breach of their licence conditions and or their terms and conditions. This is probably why, on another thread, an Atlantic customer has complained of this late notification.

Atlantic agreed not to implement the price rise until the date he received the letter.

This would seem reasonable. I will find the thread and post the link.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=15816759#post15816759

Kippy

Thank You This is a very useful informative post. Thank You

Cardew

The potential loss of the loyalty bonus sets Atlantic aside from other suppliers

I suspect that there is an instruction to Atlantic call centre operators to simply 'concede' on any complaint and use the old tariff prices up to the date the letter was received.

watchdog23

I have recieved my loyalty bonus every year without fail. The money is in my bank before i recieve a letter to say i am getting my gas and electric bonus. This is why i have stayed with Atlantic Electric. Apart from one hiccup with my account in several years i have had no problem with them
:j

martinjrb wrote: »

Is this every year? I have been with them for around 18 months now and never got a second rebate.

watchdog23

Every year without fail.