Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

Terrylw1

I understand the customers frustration to have to go this far over 3 years.

The manager dealing with this complaint should have advised the customer they could leave and prevent the objection for debt.

The courts can say what they want but in terms of the supply removal, that's the opposite if duty of care and not in the customers interests. The supplier is protected by Ofgem and the BSC, so they are being compliant. They have just been difgicilt by not allowing the customer to leave.

The supplier can't force the distributor oo remove their equipment, so the customer isn't focusing on the right parties. The lawyers and court won't have a clue about practice until it actually gets in the court and then its going to start unravelling for this customer. I think the customer has too much faith in the lawyers and needs to speak to someone who understands the process and parties responsible which I'm betting npower haven't told him/her...but failure to advise might do.

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

So the taxpayer pays!!!

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

As I said it was a free legal advice and they won't be representing in Court so there is no such motive for them. Nor is there any such motive for a pro bono case unless they win!

As to the tax payer paying, if Npower lose they pay costs. If Npower win it remains to be seen whether they will be able to recover their costs but that still doesn't mean the taxpayer will pay them.

Npower filed a claim, as they are entitled to do. The customer is equally entitled to defend it.

The customer has suggested resolving the matter via mediation Npower have refused to do so. You cannot reasonably expect them to surrender their right to defend a case as a result.

undaunted

Terrylw1 wrote: »

I understand the customers frustration to have to go this far over 3 years.

The manager dealing with this complaint should have advised the customer they could leave and prevent the objection for debt.

The courts can say what they want but in terms of the supply removal, that's the opposite if duty of care and not in the customers interests. The supplier is protected by Ofgem and the BSC, so they are being compliant. They have just been difgicilt by not allowing the customer to leave.

The supplier can't force the distributor oo remove their equipment, so the customer isn't focusing on the right parties. The lawyers and court won't have a clue about practice until it actually gets in the court and then its going to start unravelling for this customer. I think the customer has too much faith in the lawyers and needs to speak to someone who understands the process and parties responsible which I'm betting npower haven't told him/her...but failure to advise might do.

Npower told the customer to contact the distribution co. to have the supply removed as they wont do so.

The distribution co. say that Npower must contact them in order to have a supply removed.

Noone has said it cannot be done - only that they wont!

Once it eventually gets to Court however having the supply removed will be both unnecessary and irrelevant. The basic issues will be who does and doesn't owe who what and whether the customer is found to be free to have the power back on and switch supplier or whether Npower are found to have "a right to supply the property" against the customers wishes as they claim to be the case.

Regardless of what anyone says however the customer is absolutely adamant that Npower will never gwet to actually supply them again.

Terrylw1

I hope for the customers sanity they never get erroneously transferred to npower!

Npower know they can't refer a customer direct, they have to send a data flow which is not a request to disconnect more a request to contact the customer to disconnect. Npower could easily have done that even if they knew it was wrong because the distributor would not know it wasn't a legitimate cases for disconnection until they called the customer. At this point the distributor would have refused and sent npower a data flow back rejecting the request stating future use identified future use. The customer would then be stuck arguing with the distributor.

So,despite the rights and wrongs, npower could have easily weakened the case by doing this...but they are too stupid and referred the customer direct which is a non compliance to the disconnection process in the BSC.

Given the referral to the distributor, its sounds like they haven't been very understanding, old fashioned tactics employed by saying "ring them for help" just to get them off the phone.

undaunted

Terrylw1 wrote: »

I hope for the customers sanity they never get erroneously transferred to npower!

:rotfl::rotfl: Many a true word said in jest!

undaunted

It would appear that when Npower managed to get this adjourned Court staff failed to follow the Judges instruction / to relist the matter.

Following a complaint by the defendant it looks like a hearing is now set to happen on 11th & 12th July

ihateyes

id like to know how this unemployed individual is calculating a counter claim of £240,000.

Im sure his time is calculated at £60per week.

undaunted

Counter claim has nothing to do with time (in that sense) but related to customers instructions to Npower to remove their supply from the property entirely and their refusal to do so. Customer advised they would be billed at an escalating rate for each day this remained the case.

Npower claim this is nonsense, they don't accept the invoices etc.

Judge decided the counterclaim should stand.

Though an index was earlier received from Npower & they have made much noise about winning the case, barristers / costs of upto 20k, enforcing judgment when they got it, bankrupting the customer etc it now seems that Npower & Customer do not appear to have agreed the bundle, exchanged skeleton arguments etc & according to Court staff yesterday Npower did not appear to have filed the bundle with the Court. If this proves the case it was said it would be for the Judge to decide what happened from there.

Terrylw1

I think the judge should rule to have the supply physically removed and order Npower to pay costs and issue the customer with a cheque for the cost of candles for a few years.

After discussion on this thread a while back Undaunted, I spotted an obscure and never applied clause in the SLC's that allows the supplier to give the customer notice to release them. However, I would point out that there is no process to achieve this and if there were, it would leave the site "shipperless" thus allowing the customer to scam free elec for years until noticed, but even then, only the distributor could claim for payment since a supplier would have to purchase elec from the distributor from a registration date onwards in fixing the problem.

undaunted

Papers provided by Npower to both Court & customer this morning with apologies.

Customer having been disadvantaged by this was given an opportunity to review & provide their own skeleton arguments by 19th July whilst the case was adjourned to 23rd / 24th July

Npower to pay customer £100 costs (a figure suggested by them) for todays hearing.

It appears both parties are still determined to take this one to trial & even the Judge felt it would have been an interesting case to have heard