Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

davidgmmafan

Im out of sympathy now. If i notice bt is cheaper than virgin the onus is on me to do something about it. It wouldnt even cross my mind to insist in the difference over a decade. I might use it as a negotiating tool with retentions but thats it.

I think the customer is getting tripped up by words. Supplier doesnt mean they actually get the energy to the property. The reality is it all comes from the same place.

Lets say this person wins on the deemed contract issue then what? We all start have to pay deposits or have properties disconnected whenever somebody movesout? Super.

undaunted

Customer sought to do something, Npower blocked it (BT / Virgin couldn't do that!)

Customer doesn't want the difference over 10 years (if anyone it's Npower that would do this) customer just wishes to transfer to Ebico.

What Npower mean is that they & not Ebico (or anyone else) will supply and bill the customer. Customer maintains they will not!

Customer believes the overall difference (over the period in dispute) between what Ebico would have billed & Npowers offering was just under 18%

As License conditions require suppliers to offer to enter into a domestic supply contract why should (or would) any supplier be relying upon a "deemed contract" for years?

Terrylw1

Because until you choose a tariff and change to it, you are Deemed.

That's the difference between the 2, the consumer choice.

Deemed contracts then kick back in once your agreed rates expire, hence the standard contract rate.

Regardless of whether you have a fuse in or a meter at all, you are supplied by the current supplier so unless the court force a change to backdate registrations or allow distributor direct charging...it won't & can't change.

So its not as simple pulling the fuse between tenancies.

Although I do think that based on the letter from Ofgem stating they believe a Deemed contract should only exist where there is consumption, that they have really shot themselves in the foot. A court won't consider that valid considering it would release landlords and second homes from their Deemed or standard rate contracts.

undaunted

They probably based it on the fact that the Electricity Act refers to the customer taking a supply - no taking (or no consumption) = no deemed contract / supply.

SLC also state that supplier must offer to enter into a domestic supply contract, provide information and alternatives. In this case Npower did not.

Terrylw1

Yes, SLC22.2 does state it should convert from a Deemed (or standard rate contract) to a Domestic Supply Contract but this is not defined so can they get away with a flyer in an envelope? It also states "reasonable period of time" which is a get out clause and a copy out, if it doesn't state by X months, it won't be adhered to.

It says nothing of consumption but it does state points such as previously supplied and the owner where unoccupied. Unoccupied will mean no consumption, hence the Ofgem contradict the act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/27/schedule/4

undaunted

Customer argues

"Deemed contracts in certain cases

3(1)Where an electricity supplier supplies electricity to any premises otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the occupier (or the owner if the premises are unoccupied) for the supply of electricity as from the time (“the relevant time”) when he began so to supply electricity.

(2)Where—
(a)the owner or occupier of any premises takes a supply of electricity which has been conveyed to those premises by an electricity distributor;
(b)that supply is not made by an authorised supplier; and
(c)a supply of electricity so conveyed has been previously made by an electricity supplier,
the owner or occupier shall be deemed to have contracted with the appropriate supplier for the supply of electricity as from the time (“the relevant time”) when he began to take such a supply.

Ie that "takes" means they must consume energy. Also that you cannot supply "the premises" if the fuse is removed / supply is otherwise disconnected.

chanz4

Think you are looking too much into it, it does not say consume energy.

Terrylw1

Then you need to seek the true meaning of "takes" and "supply".

My interpretation is:

Takes - agrees to be supplied or is bound by the Deemed rule.

Supply - the supply from the street into the property. That is still there even with the fuse out. Otherwise you would be arguing that turning off your fuse box amounted to the same.

The elec industry aligned itself properly with this code by including a supplier registration in the new connection process to prevent "shipperless" sites. You could argue for gas, which is still years behind the elec , that the Deemed contract rule doesn't apply where new connections have taken place, but since no supplier is registered at first, no supplier is getting billed themselves hence won't try to bill the customer until after they have registered the site.

So, you need to get the court to rule that the term "takes" means "consumes" which will mean a repeal of the Act.

However, it does state "or the owner if unoccupied" which covers for no consumption. That means "takes" means "consuming or not".

The customer is trying to fight the whole industry here, not just Npower. The court are unlikely to set a precedent whereby everyone can moving in can avoid standing charge, cause the safety & theft prevention measures to break down.

I think Ofgem need to have a look at the Electricity Code, their letter and their current policy in bringing back standing charge. The latter contradicts their point on consumption.

Personally, I think there have been errors on the suppliers side and these should be targeted.

undaunted

Npower had indeed sought to argue the meaning of supply using 3 or 4 old cases as being a supply at the terminals.

The customer believes there is a significant hole in their arguments and had raised this within documents in addition to other criticisms of Npowers actions / failings.

Unfortunately none of these arguments were ever heard in Court & this fact forms part of the requested appeal.

Even given what you say above an owner would still have to take (in Ofgems view consume) a supply of energy if the premises were unoccupied. (eg with builders in?)

There is no provision for any standing charges in this particular case.

As I've said before regardless of what you think of s deemed contract as a short term measure there is no genuine basis for any supplier to try & rely upon one for years on end.

undaunted

The saga continues.

Npower have sought a costs assessment hearing - seeking about 10.5k in costs if I remember rightly. The Courts are not hurrying to hold it however - will take place late January 2013

The Court of Appeal have seemingly done nothing since August and are now claiming they can't process the forms until they receive a fee or EX160 (in fact that was sent in Aug). Customer will be sending a further copy and complaining about this unjustified delay