Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

A supply can be removed - with the suppliers involvement - but it simply requires the supplier not to be so obstructive.



That remains to be seen.

There are no court fees applicable to the defendant. In terms of solicitors or barristers, if they have to they intend acting for themselves at trial - as they have done so far through defence and several application hearings.

Npower have apparently suggested that someone called Law works may help. Meanwhile a free legal advice service (supervised by a practicisng barrister) considered the claim, defence and each parties witness statements before concluding there was an arguable case here.

As to the deemed contract there are requirements placed upon the supplier to you know and they were not followed!

as above it will be for the Courts to determine who wins or loses this case, who pays the costs etc!

The customer clearly doesn't understand the industry though and is asking the supplier to act against his/her best interests by demanding full disconnection. They would have o pay for a new connection and it could be >£1000 so i don't understand why they are pursuing this part other than due to ignorance. They should concentrate on the switch being allowed instead.

A full disconnection has little to do with the supplier. All they do is arrange for their meter operator to remove the meter, closes the account and sends a data flow to the distributor asking for them to discuss a disconnection.

The disconnection is purely between the distributor and the customer. The distributors knows its not in the customers best interest to lose the elec to then pay for a new supply later, all over a dispute and wanting to get away from the supplier.

The customer is asking everyone to voud their duty of care. Whilst not impossible, it could see them all in court later just for doing it! So, it would require a legal agreement to allow it without comebacks.

Any solicitor should start by looking at the industry processes which will prove its not up to the supplier.

spiro

Terrylw1 wrote: »

A full disconnection has little to do with the supplier. All they do is arrange for their meter operator to remove the meter, closes the account and sends a data flow to the distributor asking for them to discuss a disconnection.

They may close an account but they are still the supplier until such time as the DNO decides to disconnect the MPAN which in this instance they are unlikely to do not least because there is still a property and they could/would be seen as not acting in the interest of a customer by permanently disconnecting their supply. Therefore as the tenant in the property the poster would still be their customer.

undaunted

The customer does not consider that removing Npowers ability to block their choice of supplier would be against there best interests but isn't particularly pursuing removal of supply. It was merely their response to Npowers refusal to be reasonable and insistence they would fit a PPM earlier in the dispute.

Industry processes are not necessarily a matter of law or of any concern to either the customer, barrister or courts in this case.

chanz4

Good old potends , think the op is blowing it out of context. if his friend owed money why shouldnt he pay it back? It would be great to get rid of the deemed contract, after all when you move you would have zero power and it would stop debtors not registering and using power

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

The customer does not consider that removing Npowers ability to block their choice of supplier would be against there best interests but isn't particularly pursuing removal of supply. It was merely their response to Npowers refusal to be reasonable and insistence they would fit a PPM earlier in the dispute.

Industry processes are not necessarily a matter of law or of any concern to either the customer, barrister or courts in this case.

But if a supplier, meter operator and distributor are complying with the terms of their licence, it will be. These processes are inside the BSC so if the supplier doesn't follow them, they can be held accountable in court for it.

I just think from what I've read, the customer is pushing the wrong way. The supplier is protected by ofgem and Elexon here because the supplier is only following what they are told to do. Its like the customer is taking the whole industry on.

I can't see any court thinking a customer with no incoming supply to get around the industry process to then pay money for a new supply, would be seen as the right way to go about it. The supplier can choose not to object to debt, they are allowed to object not instructed they have to.

Terrylw1

spiro wrote: »

They may close an account but they are still the supplier until such time as the DNO decides to disconnect the MPAN which in this instance they are unlikely to do not least because there is still a property and they could/would be seen as not acting in the interest of a customer by permanently disconnecting their supply. Therefore as the tenant in the property the poster would still be their customer.

Yes, until the data flows come back the supplier wik only close the account to the meter removal. On the disconnection and MPAN terminationnflows are back, they won't deappoint their agents.

undaunted

Some of you appear to be missing the customers point of view.

The customer did not refuse to pay for electricity they had used - regardless of the fact that they believe the supposed contract to be legally unenforceable.

What they refused to do was to be held to Npowers supply on uncompetitive terms until able to do so.

It is part of the defence that Npower have not met their license obligations (based upon SLC).

Neither Ofgem or Consumer Focus have been willing to address this and Npower have so far failed to provide the requested (and court ordered) copy of their License conditions.

The offer of settlement made when able would have met the terms of the Ombudsmans earlier suggested resolution and which Npower had claimed they would honour even after it lapsed.

Npower do not have to object but choose to do so and have refused the customers suggested alternative of mediation. As they show no sign of changing that position the matter is headed for the Courts.

The dispute had been going on for approximately 3 years at the time the customer instructed them to remove the supply. They felt all other options to be exhausted.

The growing counterclaim would not have existed had the supply been removed as instructed. Npower claim it is nonsense. The Judge allowed it to stand. Its validity will be a matter determined at trial.

chanz4

A copy of all suppliers license conditions are available online, good luck paying their legal bill

undaunted

Thats a matter for the customer - and Npower. Customer says you cant get blood out of a stone either way but independant legal advice said they dont believe a costs order would be made under the circumstances even if Npower were to be successful with winning the claim.

Cardew

undaunted wrote: »

Thats a matter for the customer - and Npower. Customer says you cant get blood out of a stone either way but independant legal advice said they dont believe a costs order would be made under the circumstances even if Npower were to be successful with winning the claim.

So the taxpayer pays!!!

Lawyers will always say 'you have a case!' - it is how they get rich!