I SUED Npower... and I WON.

lstar337

DJMC wrote: »

They increased the overall price of my electricity by switching the higher number of day units, previously charged at the low night rate, with the lower number of night units previously charged at the high day rate.

If the overall number of units has not changed, and my bill goes up by £3,200 or £500, I would say that is an increase in price overall, wouldn't you?

Seems simple maths to me. There's a constant, the total number of units. There's a result, the increased charge. How has the increase happened? The average unit price has therefore increased.

Who cares about the average unit price?

You are not charged by an average, nor does any supplier take it into account.

You are charged for so many x units, and so many y units.

The simple fact is, you were undercharged due to a billing error and Npower tried to get you to pay the balance you owed. You took them to court and got a judgement because neither you nor your judge understand how an E7 bill works.

I'm glad you got the decision, but insisting that you are 'in the right' and everybody here is wrong (and/or and Npower plant) is becoming tiresome.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

DJMC wrote: »

They increased the overall price of my electricity by switching the higher number of day units, previously charged at the low night rate, with the lower number of night units previously charged at the high day rate.

If the overall number of units has not changed, and my bill goes up by £3,200 or £500, I would say that is an increase in price overall, wouldn't you?

Seems simple maths to me. There's a constant, the total number of units. There's a result, the increased charge. How has the increase happened? The average unit price has therefore increased.

Look back, the tariff price for each type of unit has NOT increased. It's the transposition that has increased the charge for day units and decreased it for night units. You may say a "charge" is not a "price" in Npower's T&Cs but turn up as Npower's counsel and start arguing this with any judge and I'm 99% certain he'd agree my increased charge is the same as an increased price.

Again, what is reasonable to the man in the street, the consumer? Why would Npower offer to give 30 days notice "if we disadvantage you"? Does it matter if I am disadvantaged through an increased (tariff) price or an increase in the overall PRICE of my electricity as it appears on an increased bill? Charge... price... whatever! I see the judge whipping off his glasses and saying to Npower's counsel "Well this is hopeless!" he throws out their hair-splitting argument over words.

I can see you fancy yourself as a serial litigator, but I have no idea what you're blithering on about.

I will reiterate for you - npower have never once changed the price they charge you per unit of energy. You used the energy under their terms, and failed to pay the correct amount for it.

Paying an invoice does not, in my opinion, constitute a contract that disavows your responsibility to pay for the energy under the terms you agreed with npower.

A gentleman in Northampton had a similar problem with npower, except the invoicing was going against him and in npower's favour.

http://www.northants-chamber.co.uk/news/article/northampton-man-takes-npower-to-court-and-wins

It would appear in this case the invoice did not constitute the final price, and the original contract price - ie. p/KWh was to be charged.

This appears to directly contradict your case. Although I can forsee your "man in the street" mentality thinking that large corporations should get a bloody nose in all instances, despite occasionally (such as in your case) the consumer being completely wrong.

npower's preferred legal firms are Osborne Clark, Bond Dickinson and Eversheds. I doubt their in house legal team would risk entering a courtroom without one of these present. Charge rates are around £350 an hour for a partner down to around £200 for a NQ solicitor. The cost soon outweighs any benefit they gain from retreiving your money.

You've avoided it numerous times, but I'll ask again: how does your legal precedent affect those with transposed meter reads that are not in the consumers favour? Do they have to pay up because that's what the bill says?

Everything about your case was entirely predictable, until the moment you came across a judge that would appear to have no knowledge of how paying for energy works.

Once again, congratulations for giving most people's least favourite energy supplier a bloody nose, but I hope if anyone else in a similar situation reads this thread they will be suitably cautious about trying a similar tactic.

dfurn

Anyhow the real question to answer is how did DJMC get on with sending the bailiffs to Npower's offices?

DJMC

captainhindsignt wrote: »

So you used energy and you don't want to pay for it....

Hopefully your attempt at bragging won't lead to thousands of other consumers to copy what you have done and drive up the costs of energy even more to cover the costs of petty law suits from people who don't want to pay for something they have used.

An interesting stance, and one I did actually consider. But remember, had I been aware of Npower's higher prices by being charged the correct amount for four years, and/or that I shouldn't be on Economy7 but a single rate tariff, I would have switched away far sooner. That entitles me to some redress surely? But I do take your point that if the energy companies stopped collecting their back-billing millions this income would have to be made elsewhere.

Overall though, they should have got it right in the first place and to expect me to suddenly come up with £500 is worth the fight.

DJMC

Cardew wrote: »

You still haven't answered the point about a customer having readings transposed to his detriment. According to your version of contract law, if a customer is wrongly billed he has no entitlement to a rebate.

I don't intend to as it's theoretical and when it happens to me I'll worry about it. I do see your point though, but am not sure how such a transposition could arise?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

DJMC wrote: »

I don't intend to as it's theoretical and when it happens to me I'll worry about it. I do see your point though, but am not sure how such a transposition could arise?

Here's how it happens.

You use 50 peak and 150 off peak.

npower send a bill asking for 150 peak and 50 off peak.

npower are asking for 3 times the amount of expensive day units as they should.

And, following your logic to it's conclusion, that's the bill so it's final!

DJMC

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Once again, congratulations for giving most people's least favourite energy supplier a bloody nose, but I hope if anyone else in a similar situation reads this thread they will be suitably cautious about trying a similar tactic.

Cautious, yes. But if incensed sufficiently do give it a go!

DJMC

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Here's how it happens.

You use 50 peak and 150 off peak.

npower send a bill asking for 150 peak and 50 off peak.

npower are asking for 3 times the amount of expensive day units as they should.

And, following your logic to it's conclusion, that's the bill so it's final!

Then I'd lose in court!

DJMC

dfurn wrote: »

Anyhow the real question to answer is how did DJMC get on with sending the bailiffs to Npower's offices?

The order is dated 15th Jan. Npower had until yesterday to pay me - they haven't. I have checked with the court to see if there is any application from Npower and there is none "on the system".

I now have to send form N323 and £100 (added to fees recoverable) to the court for a Warrant of Execution to be issued to the court bailiff to distrain at Npower's head office. This process may take a little while...

samsmoot

A billing error was made. But it was made over a long period. Had Npower spotted their error straight away and sent an amended bill - fine - it's owed. But multiple bills with multiple errors over a long period of time which have long ago been paid - it's a bit late to correct them now. Each bill contained an amount to pay, and when paid I would say it concluded the contract. Perhaps if their error was spotted immediately, and then they asked for more - that might be acceptable.


A certain price was previously agreed, but once a different amount had been requested that became the new and agreed price upon acceptance of payment. How the mistaken charging had arose is not the consumer's problem.


Of course a company can correct their errors but I believe it should have been done a lot quicker in order for it to have been acceptable and fair. Judges are people too and would probably also not feel very happy at being asked for more money for services which they though they'd long ago paid for. On the other hand some judges may see the public interest side of it, and be reluctant to find against Npower.


On the whole I believe that most judges would appreciate and understand the Claimant's stance but be a little miffed that Npower's administration was so poor as to leave a customer owing a surprise £3000. If I had to bet on anyone it would be the Claimant, an Npower win only being likely IMO if they could show some solid law to back up their claims. I think anything less than total and unequivocal proof would fail.