Erroneous Transfer - Keep quiet or resolve?

JasX

Kim pretty much hit the nail on the head.

you'll be deemed to have a contract with the new supplier and have to pay for any useage at (undiscounted) cost.

you could try to challenge if you found out about this belatedly but since your old supplier has a record of telling you about the switch (over the phone at the very lease as per your above post) you don;t really have a case to make / it'll all fall apart if it comes to court.

Best bet is to start the erroneous transfer procedure asap to restore the status quo, then get onto a comparison site and switch yourself too the best tariff, and grab some free cashback at the same time.

you'll end up paying for any energy you use at

Plushchris

Brduk wrote: »

Where have I said I will not offer payment? Please use a direct quote in your return statement.

In your original post you mentioned "playing it dumb" and "keeping quiet" about it, if that isnt not offering payment then what is?

You also added that you have redundncy looming?

So whats the plan?

Run up debt while burying your head in the sand then when they do find out, you wont be able to afford paying for it anyway because you'll have been made redundant?

Or contact the suppliers, sort the problem out, pay for whats been used while you can still afford to?

DVardysShadow

JasX wrote: »

Kim pretty much hit the nail on the head.

you'll be deemed to have a contract with the new supplier and have to pay for any useage at (undiscounted) cost.

Is this really true? OP has had no part in an erroneous transfer. It would be grossly unfair if anything happened other than he was transferred back to his original supplier on his original tarriff.

As an aside, this is another good reason to open mail addressed to an unknown person at your address.

JasX

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Is this really true? OP has had no part in an erroneous transfer. It would be grossly unfair if anything happened other than he was transferred back to his original supplier on his original tarriff.

yes and no, normally yes assuming things proceed as follows:

Case A
Customer X is erroneously transferred
Customer X makes contact with original company and is informed they have been transferred.
Customer X pipes up immediately pointing out the erroneous transfer and is moved back

However in this case things are set to develop differently

Case B
Customer X is erroneously transferred
Customer X makes contact with original company and is informed they have been transferred.
Customer X waits several months after being explicitly informed of the transfer until they either have a change of heart from 'playing dumb' or some other issue comes to light about about the new company not receiving payment.
Customer X will possibly find original suppplier not interested in initiating erroneous transfer process given the amount of time elapsed beterrn customer being explicitly told of transfer and deciding it suited them to now declare it erroneous.
Customer X is in the position of owing new supplier money, things could go one of several ways....

I don't think in Case B the 'grossly unfair' terms you describe would apply

spiro

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As an aside, this is another good reason to open mail addressed to an unknown person at your address.

That is a good way to get arrested, it is illegal to open post delivered to your address that does not have your name on it, the only exception being anything addressed to 'The Occupier'.

JasX

spiro wrote: »

That is a good way to get arrested, it is illegal to open post delivered to your address that does not have your name on it, the only exception being anything addressed to 'The Occupier'.

another thing that doesn't help is wanna be Lawyers who have no idea what the law actually says bumbling in here spouting complete tripe like the above as fact.

spiro

JasX wrote: »

another thing that doesn't help is wanna be Lawyers who have no idea what the law actually says bumbling in here spouting complete tripe like the above as fact.

From the Postal Services Act 2000

84Interfering with the mail: general

(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—

(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.

(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

(4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both

JasX

spiro wrote: »

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

yes so basically in most situations you're fine, the legal status of mail is quite different when its actually been delivered to when its still in transit

spiro

JasX wrote: »

yes so basically in most situations you're fine, the legal status of mail is quite different when its actually been delivered to when its still in transit

The advice from a police officer is dont do it because it is very difficult to prove you did not open it "to a person’s detriment " because they could claim you were looking to see if it contained money/gift voucher etc.

JasX

spiro wrote: »

The advice from a police officer is dont do it because it is very difficult to prove you did not open it "to a person’s detriment " because they could claim you were looking to see if it contained money/gift voucher etc.

well if your particularly paranoid you could go down that route, personally I think that kind of thing would be very easy to 'claim' but very difficult to 'prove' to a criminal standard in court (and its for them to prove you guilty, not you to prove your innocence remember). Especially in relation to admin type things like utility bills, threatening looking letters from debt collectors who so often send 'gifts/cash' etc etc

again, ok in most cases and for most 'reasonable' people this is true tho I suppose if you already have an extensive criminal record relating to cheque fraud and/or petty theft best to play it safe too....

:A