Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

davidgmmafan

Feel bad for the defendant (or is it respondent in civil cases?). Clearly they are determined having lived without electricity for two years.

This could have all been avoided if they had changed supplier right away. I know the argument that people don't know to do this, but how does the supplier know someone has moved in if nobody tells them?

I agree six months is a long time though, the costs of unpaid electricity across the industry must be huge (given a tenancy last for 6 months initially).

There is an interesting point at stake here, and the system of disconnections described previously does make a lot of sense. Why shouldn't someone have to do something to get the supply on, up to and including a deposit. If they were going to pay it anyway wheres the harm?

Of course this makes it a massive pain for people who do want to move in right away and have power, but can't have it all ways...

chanz4

Think if the ops friend accepted he had to pay, or moved supplier as soon as he moved in it wouldn't of happened.

Terrylw1

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Feel bad for the defendant (or is it respondent in civil cases?). Clearly they are determined having lived without electricity for two years.

This could have all been avoided if they had changed supplier right away. I know the argument that people don't know to do this, but how does the supplier know someone has moved in if nobody tells them?

I agree six months is a long time though, the costs of unpaid electricity across the industry must be huge (given a tenancy last for 6 months initially).

There is an interesting point at stake here, and the system of disconnections described previously does make a lot of sense. Why shouldn't someone have to do something to get the supply on, up to and including a deposit. If they were going to pay it anyway wheres the harm?

Of course this makes it a massive pain for people who do want to move in right away and have power, but can't have it all ways...

It used to be that way, the fuses were pulled on vacancy if no new tenant.

It used to cost the supplier huge amounts in Meter Operator charges, negotiated contracts were far high than required giving the MOP more power to raise charges and supplier resource charges were higher. It also caused lots if customer complaints.

It was dumped on that basis.

So, if they bring it back you can bet a) the supplier won't pay, the consumer will and b) they will make a profit out of it.

You also need to consider the profit involved since some of the meter change charges I've seen on here are double the costs some suppliers pay. So, you can bet it will become an issue like we have with the runaway train that is tariffs.

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

Indeed it was referred to in the pack but due to the lack of Court experience it would probably have required the defendant to go through each item they raised, cross reference arguments to Npowers arguments and the appendix of things like this they had attached.

Judge had apparently declared he intended "seizing back control of a case that had got out of hand" very early on and simply didn't allow the defendant to do this, saying he could read it quicker himself.

Given that he apparently stated when giving judgement that he had read it but had not understood the arguments it would appear questionable whether or not he made the effort to do so or had merely read the document without reference to those cross references and appendix.





Aren't they all? What happened to the change in SLC removing the transfer switch they indicated they may use if industry agreement could not be reached in the 1999 document?




No - hasn't had any since the fuse was removed on 7/5/10

On that basis alone, he/she should appeal. I'm not saying I believe there is a case but I do believe their is an entitlement to fairness and its inexcusable for a judge to rule without understanding the facts in a case, and they wonder why the public have little faith in them!

Something to consider when debating Ofgem's truly amateur view of Deemed contracts based on consumption is the fact that the supplier pays settlement where the distributors MPAS record reflects energised. So, they would continue to pay for electricity regardless of consumption and unless they can obtain readings from the meter to create a zeroed forecast, they can't do anything about it,

Aside from this, Ofgem would need to make a massive revamp of the market as it wasn't set up to work this way. You would be talking a change over years probably in packets...it would mean a rewrite of codes and changes to lots if industry software. It would cost the consumer a lot!

So, I wonder why Ofgem are hiding behind the statement of "case-by-case" in court? Its obvious to me. They know its massive & costly. They know everyone in the market will oppose them. They know it will hit the % they generate from the market. They know they can bluff the uninformed consumer into thinking they "have your back" when your case goes to court, whilst happily letting you end up their because they won't put their money where their mouth is and change it!

A point you may find interesting is that the supplier only pays settlement up to de-energisation date/reading. Perhaps they can agree the customer can switch to re-energise to finalise this, aside from any payment?

I should just mention that even if de-energised, the supplier pays a yearly agent fee for record maintenance and if the meter is still on site, the 2 year mandatory check still applies to them in the SLC's.

chanz4

As well as the SLC , don't forget to take into account the utilities act and electric act 1989

spiro

Terrylw1 wrote: »

I should just mention that even if de-energised, the supplier pays a yearly agent fee for record maintenance and if the meter is still on site, the 2 year mandatory check still applies to them in the SLC's.

For a de-energised site the DC has to attend annually to confirm there is no consumption. There is no distinction between there being a meter on site or not.

undaunted

spiro wrote: »

For a de-energised site the DC has to attend annual to confirm there is no consumption. There is no distinction between there being a meter on site or not.

Who controls / monitors this then? (it certainly hasn't happened in this case, whilst they have not done so customer has observed to Npower on a couple of occasions that for all anyone knows they could have simply replaced the fuse)

undaunted

I'm not a fan of the deemed contract at all but surely if there is too be one the answer to the problems that often currently occur is very simple - a deemed contract must be a temporary measure only and not something any supplier still seeks to glibly rely upon 11 years later.

When you buy or sell a car you are required to notify DVLA. (If you fail to do so you may remain liable for any parking / speeding fines etc). Why not have a similar requirement to notify the supplier of change of occupancy, meter reading, new occupier / owner etc when leaving a property.

Thereafter supplier would be required to contact and either have a contract in place with the new occupier or owner (if unoccupied) within say 3 months, been notified of a transfer or to disconnect supply.

The customer would in the meantime have plenty of opportunity to decide whether they entered into contract with the existing supplier or switched elsewhere

chanz4

undaunted wrote: »

Who controls / monitors this then? (it certainly hasn't happened in this case, whilst they have not done so customer has observed to Npower on a couple of occasions that for all anyone knows they could have simply replaced the fuse)

If they did replace the fuse, its grounds for disconnection under section 6/6 for illegal reconnection

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

Who controls / monitors this then? (it certainly hasn't happened in this case, whilst they have not done so customer has observed to Npower on a couple of occasions that for all anyone knows they could have simply replaced the fuse)

Its only useful in detection of tampers and missing data (Meter Operator doesn't pass the data on or a distributor does something) and you will find it is badly regulated just like the safety inspection.

Ofgem per the SLC's can request such in information since they have a general clause to cover it. However, do they validate it? Given the yearly industry audts on suppliers are not checked and suppliers are "trusted" to give accurate information...my money is on no!