Energy meter reader trespass??

Terrylw1

I agree that the terms are ambiguous.

That's my point, Ofgem can easily publish a standards document. Then they can include it as a new licence condition to protect the consumer. Anything then classed as unreasonable could be determined by a non compliance.

This would also protect the meter readers from any unscrupulous senior management activity since they could easily use the whistleblowers process to report them.

Jamie made the point of having a boundary but many properties do not have a side boundary but not everyone would like a meter reader walking past their side windows. So, there could always be someone complaining.

I've never found the term "reasonable" worth leaving open to trust and corporate responsibility.

uk1

It really is quite simple. They aren't ambiguous to the consumer. He doesn't believe he has given the rights presumed by the utilities managemnt. That is if he has read them. You incorrectly seem to think that an ambiguous or unfair contract is binding because it has ben signed. It isn't.

As i said before - and I think we agree- this is a managemnt practice issue and the moment they get challenged by someone who understands the issue - and in my case they KNOW I do from the email address - they very quickly back off.

The whole idea od UCTA was to sway consumer contracts back to the bias of the consumer.

Apologies fr ipad related typos.

Terrylw1

I don't think its limited to that sole root cause.

I think its any or all of:

- old practices used by the boards. Many old practices still exist or became part of the current standards.

- senior management strategy to achieve contractual targets.

- middle management applying pressure to preserve their positions.

- the t&c's. The supplier is a seperate party, so one thing to consider is what is being agreed at contract management level between these parties?

- individuals chasing their targets/commissions for whatever reason.

It could easily be cleared up with the introduction of what is and isn't acceptable in their licences.

The average consumer doesn't have the knowledge to challenge all this.

The terms in t&c's are not clear in terms of what attempts they will make to gain access to the meter so the consumer may interpret them differently. Npower's for instance, places the term "reasonable" on the consumer but if they don't state their intentions, you don't know what you are agreeing to.

uk1

....... Sorry missed a pointI intended tomake.

There is an unintended firewall. The consumer has a contract with a utility and a completely seperate organsiation - the meter readers - are interpreting a contract that THEY do not directly have with the consumer. this gives an unacceptable let out excuse for the utlities who will back off and say whencriticised that they do not approve of the abuses of the meter companies. It is a way of attempting to immunise yourself from the msidemeanours of your subcontract meter reading company. Don't know whether I' ve made my point clear.

And to make the point clear one final time - an unfair contract termis unenforceable - signed or not.


It stinks.


Anyway .... I'm done.

Terrylw1

Ah, well on that point I can answer based on experience.

Ofgem and other regulatory bodies such as Elexon, hold the suppliers responsible for the actions of their agents under duty of care.

There have been various investigations, targets imposed and monitoring projects on this basis.

I agree in that there are grey areas where each party points at the other due to this contracting method. However, Ofgem and now the ombudsman will deal with such cases regardless of where the issue lies, to act for the consumer. The fee of course, would sit with the supplier who can choose to invoice it back to the agent on top of any compensation the ombudsman decides is required by either or both parties.

That's why MSE forums are so useful, consumers can talk openly to parties who operate in these industries with varied roles.

skivenov

Didn't read the whole thread, but I like the word "trespass" it reminds me of one of my hobbies.

Legally: Unless you happen to live on an MOD establishment, the railway or a few other places (criminal trespass), it's only trespass if you've asked them to leave and they don't (commonlaw trespass). Yeah, if they damage your 6 foot gate when they clear it, that's an offense, as if they damage any of your other property.

If not, fair play to them for getting the reading, saving you an estimated bill and saving you getting off your !!!!.

Braitain needs more dedicated workers like that guy.

chanz4

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Already have.

I'm just wondering why you continue to use insulting comments rather than engage in a debate?

If the contracts of all the energy suppliers are unfair, why do they exist? Why have Ofgem taken no action to have the offending terms removed?

There will be individuals who will break the rules in search of a commission and senior managers who will turn their heads until they are challenged. Is it different in any sector?

Don't think they know any better, apparently we both don't know what we are on about even as been in the industry for over 10 years. Would love to be a meter reader, be easier than the network rpu job I have

uk1

Terrylw1 wrote: »

Ah, well on that point I can answer based on experience.

Ofgem and other regulatory bodies such as Elexon, hold the suppliers responsible for the actions of their agents under duty of care.

...... and this is also true under the contract. The point I was simply making was that it allowed the utility to pretend it is unaware of unacceptable behaviour.

For what it's worth ... bored governments always regularly change quangos and their heads.

I mentioned earlier a series of tests that have to be passed for an (unfair) contract term to be enforceable. Generally speaking if it fails any of the few tests I highlighted it will basically be decided that the clause is unfair. It doesn't need to fail all of the tests.

However the first test ie the relative power of both sides when making the agreement is particularly significant in this situation largely for the reasons unwittingly made sneeringly by some given already in the thread.

Firstly it is presumed that the consumer is relatively ill-informed compared to the clever contract writing departments and lawyers employed by large corporations. So this presumes that corporations write contracts designed to place the balance of benefit in their favour either due to clever clause writing or simply being unclear about their genuine intentions. It is clear (if the posters here are to be believed) that the clause says one thing and they mean another. So it fails from that viewpoint. But the second is often overlooked but even more significant in this siutation. Does the consumer need the product and do they have a real choice to go elsewhere to get the product if they do not sign the agreement?

Many here are saying that all the contracts are pretty much the same. So shopping around is unlikely to provide a supplier with a wildly different access clause. Further, in thinking about the contract in it's practical environment is it likely that G4S or the others treat customers of different utilities different in their behaviour because each utility has a different consumer contract with rtespect to the wording od it's access rights? That seems unlikely.

That effectively means that it doesn't matter what utility you are with - or what contract you signed - the meter readers behave in the same way offering the consumer no real choice. if you were to believe some of the attitudes shown here that when consumers look for a utility that behaves from the consumer viewpoint as "reasonable" in terms of it's access behaviour - then the consumer is then faced with a choice. It is simply electricity or no electricity. Gas or no gas.

That is why the "relative power of both sides" of the contract is signficant in this situation. It fails at the first test hurdle. It also fails at all of the rest ie can the words "reasonable access" preclude a consumer the right to say "go away it isn't convenient and only come back at a time that I specify". Most people understand that as long as access at a reasonable appointed time - with alternatives - is offered then reasonable access has been offered.

On the subject of consumer contracts overall, suppliers are always trying to write contracts that disadvantage the consumer. The main new one is about buying over the net. Most contracts have small letter clauses that try to convince customers that their right to change their mind or reject items bought over the net because they don't like them is more limited than it is. Doing this relies on the consumer being ignorant of the distance selling regulations or believing that they have waived their rights if it says so in the small letters of the T's&C's. Sadly companies get away with it. But the distance selling regs applies to all (well most anyway ... there are some things not covered .....) things bought over the net.

Finally one other concept not grasped by many of the idiots who think that disrepsecting people's privacy is their right. Acts that they cite were earlier than the acts that I have cited. In very simple terms it doesn't mean a thing if an act says one thing then a general law of wide principles is subsequently bought in that says things that contradict the earlier one. Generally speaking it is the later law that takes precedent.

Today, contracts that are unfair are unenforceable and most people in this context - with the exception of meter readers - have a grasp of what is reasonable and fair - are uneforceable. Nothing (well not much anyway .... but that is a different topic .... don't start me on the behaviour of local planning departments ....) can take away the basic human right to privacy unless we have clearly broken the law.

I hope that this background is of interest or I have once again just wasted a further 20 minutes of my life .......

Anyway ...... back to the bread making .....

uk1

chanz4 wrote: »

Don't think they know any better, apparently we both don't know what we are on about even as been in the industry for over 10 years. Would love to be a meter reader, be easier than the network rpu job I have

And one final point to you my friend.

You lost all credibility on this thread - and I paraphrase - that you believe that meter readers can do what they want to gain access to read the meters, and if they upset you that you clearly imply that you will spitefully falsely state that without any other reasonable evidence (other than they prevented you from seeing the meter on that day) that you suspoect meter tampering and that your colleagues would take great pleasure in breaking into private home with no notice in order to punish them for upsetting you. You have basically said "I'll abuse the trust placed in me to teach you a lesson and to get my own back". That is what I took from your posts.

You also imply that you believe that making a statement to a court clerk to obtain a warrant is somehow less significant than making the statement to a magistrate and doing so wont cause you problems.

Finally you have stated that you believe that meter readers who cause damage to private property in the view of CCTV cameras needn't worry because the CCTV can't be used in evidence to convict unless there are signs.

I do believe you are who you say you are. But from your own attitudes and your own words you are dangerously dumb on both how you and your friends should behave and you really aren't a nice person to have doing this type of work.

Jamie_Carter

Terrylw1 wrote: »

But when did this start? Is this a practice that took place prior to deregulation hence government backed? If it is, these people have continued the practice based on that approval.

Again, it depends on the customer. Its possible the meter could be down the side of the house with no barrier and some would feel a meter reader walking half way down the side of their house or even around to the rear, unreasonable.

It doesn't matter when it started. What you as a meter reader, and what the householder think is reasonable may be two different things. But as it is the householders property, then they have the final say, and not you.

There is no point in you even arguing about it, because at any time the householder can kick you off their property...end of story!!!!