Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

chanz4

undaunted wrote: »

In this case, as far as I can see they wont be able to decide otherwise as Npowers own Standard terms state that if supply is cut off and no longer required the contract is terminated.

That would only apply, if it went shipperless

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

When has there ever been a system where you had two contracts with different people? ie, if I've understood what is suggested above correctly you could have

a contract of some form in place with an occupier / tenant

a deemed contract in place with someone taking ownership but not in occupation

Spiro's post states that you take liability for payment of supply when you enter into an agreement of purchase or tenancy where the contract/tenancy goes through. So, you may choose to move in later but that doesn't waive your need to pay for utilities.

So, there is no overlapping contracts or Deemed and agreed contract running together. If the customer agrees to a non standard rate from there date of ownership/tenancy which they arrange prior to their date, they are not in a Deemed contract. If the customer only negotiates the agreed contract rate later than their date, they are in a Deemed contract until you make this agreement (although its likely the supplier will apply the agreed rates from their date as opposed to when they made contact later)

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

In this case, as far as I can see they wont be able to decide otherwise as Npowers own Standard terms state that if supply is cut off and no longer required the contract is terminated.

Supply is the distributors supply to the meter point. Removing the supply means the MPAN/MPRN is cancelled hence no supplier has any liability to pay. If the situation changes, the distributor will charge for a new connection and the customer is free to choose any supplier but they have to register in order o get a meter installed which the distributor won't do as they need a supplier registered to be able to charge them back for the supply.

The meter and its fuses are after the supply point hence can be removed/change/fit by the suppliers agent.

The supply can only be touched by the distributor as they own it. Suppliers agents are not qualified to touch the supply anyway nor an authorised party to conduct such works.

undaunted

The trial did not go well for the defendant, who found the Judge unsympathetic and inclined to cut what other Judges had suggested to be a 2 - 3 day trial to about 3 hours plus Judgment the following day of perhaps an hour or two at most.

At present Npower have a Judgement and costs.

The Defendant now intends making application to the Court of Appeal to over turn this.

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Aside from the issues leading to the disconnection, the judge just needs to determine whether de-energising a site invalidates a Deemed contract. The judge would also need to consider that if it did who on earth is going to refit the fuse...since the customer would have to wait weeks for a supply registration to take place.

The Judge apparently suggested a deemed contract could not be unilaterally terminated but did not engage in the arguments around this at all according to the Defendants view. He also suggested that it did not matter even if Npower had not provided the customer with terms & conditions accepting Npowers argument it was a statutory deemed contract. This will be two of the key points of appeal

undaunted

Terrylw1 wrote: »

So, it depends what you are saying. If you are saying that any form of de-energisation is a way to de-register, Ofgem would be opening themselves up for a world of problems. Unless I saw a document, I wouldn't believe that unless a poor remark by someone junior who has no understanding or influence.

I will say, that from dealings with Ofgem people, they aren't always the experts consumers may think they should be. That's because the other industry bodies deal with the far more complex licences.

Got a doc about it? It would be interesting to see if Ofgem have broken the UA terms with it.

Npower argued supply was to terminals (citing 3 old cases)

Defendant argues they do not own terminals (as per cited cases), nor "take supply" and "the premises" are not being supplied, the supply to the domestic premises has been stopped (Links1 & 2). Ofgem state disconnection, removal of fuse, de-energisation etc are all to be treated as one in reporting (link 3) There is no deemed contract at the present time - even if there ever was once a valid one (links 4 onward)

Definitions used being from

http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/EPRFiles/Electricity%20Supply%20full%20set%20of%20standard%20licence%20conditions%20consolidated%20-%2010-11-2011%20-%20Current%20Version.pdf

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/green-deal/3509-proposed-distribution-standard-lic-cond.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Monitoring/SoObMonitor/Documents1/SOR guidance_27-03-12.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compl/SLR/SteerngGrp/Documents1/14328-Contracts - Final Report to Steering Group v1 3.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compet/Documents1/Statement on Deemed Contracts.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compet/Documents1/Guidance on deemed contracts as per Standard Licence Condition 7.3 of the Gas and Electricity Supply Licences.pdf

chanz4

Well done judge, just hope they don't plan a bankruptcy order against your friend.

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

The trial did not go well for the defendant, who found the Judge unsympathetic and inclined to cut what other Judges had suggested to be a 2 - 3 day trial to about 3 hours plus Judgment the following day of perhaps an hour or two at most.

At present Npower have a Judgement and costs.

The Defendant now intends making application to the Court of Appeal to over turn this.




The Judge apparently suggested a deemed contract could not be unilaterally terminated but did not engage in the arguments around this at all according to the Defendants view. He also suggested that it did not matter even if Npower had not provided the customer with terms & conditions accepting Npowers argument it was a statutory deemed contract. This will be two of the key points of appeal

Then you need to look at SLC22 which contradicts the judge's statement on t&c's.

Terrylw1

undaunted wrote: »

Npower argued supply was to terminals (citing 3 old cases)

Defendant argues they do not own terminals (as per cited cases), nor "take supply" and "the premises" are not being supplied, the supply to the domestic premises has been stopped (Links1 & 2). Ofgem state disconnection, removal of fuse, de-energisation etc are all to be treated as one in reporting (link 3) There is no deemed contract at the present time - even if there ever was once a valid one (links 4 onward)

Definitions used being from

http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/EPRFiles/Electricity%20Supply%20full%20set%20of%20standard%20licence%20conditions%20consolidated%20-%2010-11-2011%20-%20Current%20Version.pdf

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/green-deal/3509-proposed-distribution-standard-lic-cond.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Monitoring/SoObMonitor/Documents1/SOR guidance_27-03-12.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compl/SLR/SteerngGrp/Documents1/14328-Contracts - Final Report to Steering Group v1 3.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compet/Documents1/Statement on Deemed Contracts.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compet/Documents1/Guidance on deemed contracts as per Standard Licence Condition 7.3 of the Gas and Electricity Supply Licences.pdf

There is 2 documents from Ofgem stating its a matter for a court to decide and is a case-by-case basis. I totally disagree with this since the registration remains in place regardless of occupation of the property. It us very easy for Ofgem to state "must have consumption" or "exists regardless of consumption" hence Ofgem's statements on this are a cop out.

If Ofgem stand by that, change the SLC but first they need to change the Utility Act.

However, is there now a gap in the UA as it was transferred in favour of customers leaving a previous contract for a Deemed one?

In terms of disconnection, the term in the SLC is ambiguous.

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

Has the friend got electricity or not!

undaunted

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Then you need to look at SLC22 which contradicts the judge's statement on t&c's.

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.

Terrylw1 wrote: »

There is 2 documents from Ofgem stating its a matter for a court to decide and is a case-by-case basis. I totally disagree with this since the registration remains in place regardless of occupation of the property. It us very easy for Ofgem to state "must have consumption" or "exists regardless of consumption" hence Ofgem's statements on this are a cop out.

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?

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

Has the friend got electricity or not!

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