Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

chanz4

undaunted wrote: »

In the case no one ever got to find out what the distributor would say as Npower simply refused to contact them.

Customer disputes they do supply, have any right to supply, or even to object to the transfer of an ex customer hence the old cases Npower sought out seeking to argue that they do still supply even though the customer has had no electricity since 7/5/10.

Tell your friend to apply for a second service, only about £1k then go with who ever he wants.

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

Tell your friend to apply for a second service, only about £1k then go with who ever he wants.

The distributor would need to resolve the current live supply. If they agreed to do it, they would have to logically disconnect the current MPAN.

It would also mean they have agreed to fit a new supply to an already connected property thus conning a customer out of cash for something they already had. I doubt they would agree to this an an attempt to release a customer from a supplier plus it could badly backfire on them.

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

In the case no one ever got to find out what the distributor would say as Npower simply refused to contact them.

Customer disputes they do supply, have any right to supply, or even to object to the transfer of an ex customer hence the old cases Npower sought out seeking to argue that they do still supply even though the customer has had no electricity since 7/5/10.

Its not the suppliers responsibility to do that, its the customers. All the supplier does is send a data flow with the customers contact details on requesting they make contact with the customer. Customers can and do contact the distributor direct which was always very common years ago but the supplier is the preferred route (the compliant route) as it allows for the meter removal. The distributor can always remove that meter, do the job and send the suppliers Meter Operator the details as they do in emergency scenarios.

In terms of contract, Npower are right until someone forces a change in industry policy. Since Ofgem won't commit to changing the whole industry, they are awaiting a precedent but I don't think they will do anything then since its going to be very expensive to change all this and will take years to release.

If I were doing this, I would be arguing that the customer can have X days to switch no matter how much debt. If the customer won't switch, they remain with Npower.

In terms of objections, I really don't see that should remain. At some point the court will hopefully force that to change, but the blame on that lies squarely with Ofgem. Why not argue the discriminatory issue from the SLC's since customers objected to could be seen as a group that are impacted by the supplier decision if they are forced onto standard rates? The objection SLC allows it but perhaps this angle can be used to change this SLC? Since the customer is "locked in" on higher rates, the impact is "material".

chanz4

If the op didn't register that they moved in, the supplier is correct to object if debt is there, how do they know your just not the old person.... they don't.

undaunted

Supplier & customer know exactly who each other are I can assure you - they've been in & out of Court together on multiple occasions.

Also customer contacted supplier back in Jan 2002 & has been billed in their name since.

Distributors website shows that they require contact from the supplier in order to remove supply. Supplier refuses to make that contact

Customer argues that there is no right of supply to be found in the electricity act (or anywhere else) & a transfer of supplier objection is just that - ie that objection or not it doesn't provide any right to continue supplying against the customers wishes!

They tried the Human Rights Act for the discrimination angle, last Judge wasn't interested, remains to be seen whether Court of Appeal will agree or not

chanz4

Why does he not just pay what he owes, and move on to another supplier or offer half in settlement? Seems to me your mates clutching at straws

Terrylw1

But that's the problem, the elec industry can't change to become "shipperless" so you don't apply for a new contract but a change of suppliers.

In terms of the UA, you need to go through that to determine if there is still a reference to a Deemed contract. I was looking through this before but all I could see regarding them was for existing customers.

In terms of the service removal, the correct process is via the supplier but it happens without supplier contact in certain cases such as emergencies. It also happens direct with builders in urgent cases and there is an allowance for mass disconnection. Regardless, the court may still have a view of the real world since they would know that if customers had this right, they could exploit distributors since their would be no recording consumption to produce any bills. The court would be wary of setting a precedent like this.

The customer could also have investigated this part more thoroughly by contacting them for their opinion. I realise this is perhaps going a bit far for most customers but if he/she is willing to have no power and go to court, this seems a lesser action to take.

undaunted

chanz4 wrote: »

Why does he not just pay what he owes, and move on to another supplier or offer half in settlement? Seems to me your mates clutching at straws

Initially they didn't have the money.

Later, with third party assistance, 1442.99 was offered against an estimated £1559.99 Npower ignored it favouring PPM & about 10 years of payments would you believe

Customer refused to accept liability for anything beyond what Ebico would have charged & maintains that is going to stay their position so would not pay Npowers claimed balance even if they had it.

chanz4

For the difference, I would of paid it and moved on.

undaunted

A request for permission for an appeal hearing has been submitted