I SUED Npower... and I WON.

thefishdude

congrats for winning and to be honest its npowers mistake, they deserve to lose.its the fact it took them 3 years to realise and you have to wonder how many other people they do this to and suddenly send them a large bill.

its fine saying about entering a contract and you should pay it back but like many i budget for my energy uses by what my bills state many people in this country can only just afford energy and food to get by on no luxuries just those basics. if one of those people 3 years down then line suddenly recieved a letter like this asking for 3k it would have a devestating effect they would have no savings or anyway to repay it. what then ?

lstar337

samsmoot wrote: »

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.

How would you expect them to spot the error sooner?

Considering they have no knowledge of the end users usage habits, you cannot work out which is day and night usage just by looking at the figures side by side.

Not to mention that Npower had their customer giving them the same muddled readings, which further confirms there is no error to investigate. The only way they would know something was a miss, is when the figures were once again reversed by either a meter reader, or the customer.

Note to customers: If you submit your own readings, make sure the day and night readings are correct. Being the end user you should have a clearer idea of whether you use more at night or during the day. That way, the supplier has no reason to mess up your bill.

Cardew

samsmoot wrote: »

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.

Without trying to be contentious! would you say that the above theory applies in the cases on MSE where transposing meter readings have worked to the customer's disadvantage and the Utility company's advantage? i.e. when the incorrect bills have 'long ago been paid - it is a bit late to correct them' and hence the customer cannot expect a refund?

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

Without trying to be contentious! would you say that the above theory applies in the cases on MSE where transposing meter readings have worked to the customer's disadvantage and the Utility company's advantage? i.e. when the incorrect bills have 'long ago been paid - it is a bit late to correct them' and hence the customer cannot expect a refund?

It did cross my mind but decided it was a different kettle of fish.


For one thing Npower should be held to a higher standard of compliance. It is, after all, their equipment and readings and billing which dictate the matter. An error which is either in favour of or disadvantageous to the customer is still an error of Npower (even if it's the customer who gives incorrect readings due to that being an all too easy thing to do), and so if their negligence leads to loss they are to blame.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

samsmoot wrote: »

It did cross my mind but decided it was a different kettle of fish.


For one thing Npower should be held to a higher standard of compliance. It is, after all, their equipment and readings and billing which dictate the matter. An error which is either in favour of or disadvantageous to the customer is still an error of Npower (even if it's the customer who gives incorrect readings due to that being an all too easy thing to do), and so if their negligence leads to loss they are to blame.

So an incorrect invoice can only be in the purchasers favour?!

Think about what you're saying for a second. Why stop at npower? What about the local carpenter? He could accidentally knock a zero off his invoice. Contract binding, 1 vs 0 to the consumer, even if it puts the sole trader out of business!

I suspect deep down you know (or at least I hope you do) your argument has no basis in law, or even common sense for that matter.

samsmoot

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

So an incorrect invoice can only be in the purchasers favour?!

Think about what you're saying for a second. Why stop at npower? What about the local carpenter? He could accidentally knock a zero off his invoice. Contract binding, 1 vs 0 to the consumer, even if it puts the sole trader out of business!

I suspect deep down you know (or at least I hope you do) your argument has no basis in law, or even common sense for that matter.

OK - I will think about it some more. If I deep down or otherwise come to the realisation that I'm wrong then so be it.

samsmoot

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

So an incorrect invoice can only be in the purchasers favour?!

Think about what you're saying for a second. Why stop at npower? What about the local carpenter? He could accidentally knock a zero off his invoice. Contract binding, 1 vs 0 to the consumer, even if it puts the sole trader out of business!

I suspect deep down you know (or at least I hope you do) your argument has no basis in law, or even common sense for that matter.

The first thing that comes to mind re your carpenter analogy is that if that carpenter had spotted the undercharging only after four years they would probably have gone bust by then anyway.


Secondly, if the carpenter does not notice the shortage, and the payment is accepted as full and final payment, then my feeling is that they would have to act quickly to recover the underpayment. And if they consistently, and over a long period of time, sent out invoices for a tenth of the amount owed instead of for the full amount I'd say that's pretty negligent, as well as bad business practice.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

samsmoot wrote: »

The first thing that comes to mind re your carpenter analogy is that if that carpenter had spotted the undercharging only after four years they would probably have gone bust by then anyway.


Secondly, if the carpenter does not notice the shortage, and the payment is accepted as full and final payment, then my feeling is that they would have to act quickly to recover the underpayment. And if they consistently, and over a long period of time, sent out invoices for a tenth of the amount owed instead of for the full amount I'd say that's pretty negligent, as well as bad business practice.

If you want to introduce time to the debate, in England and Wales there is a 6 year statute whereby a creditor can claim a debt.

Underpaying for something for which you agreed to pay more for does constitute a debt, even if it was committed in error.

"Probably would have gone bust" and "bad business practice" are just semantics.

Cardew

samsmoot wrote: »

For one thing Npower should be held to a higher standard of compliance. It is, after all, their equipment and readings and billing which dictate the matter. An error which is either in favour of or disadvantageous to the customer is still an error of Npower (even if it's the customer who gives incorrect readings due to that being an all too easy thing to do), and so if their negligence leads to loss they are to blame.

Indeed the Utility companies do have a higher standard of compliance. They have signed up for a voluntary code where they agree that, no matter how long they have been undercharging(and are at fault), they will only reclaim for the preceding 12 months.


Don't forget that the OP had been undercharged £3,200 over a period of 4 years. NPower immediately wrote off £2,500 leaving £700. They then reduced that by a further £200 leaving the £500 outstanding - the sum which the OP disputes.


Had the OP been overcharged £3,200 over the same 4 year period, IMO he would be entitled to a refund of the whole £3,200 for the 4 years.


However the main point of intervening was that the OP was adamant(to the point of rudeness) that under Contract Law an incorrect bill took precedence over contractual obligations.


Much as I am aware you wish to support the OP - particularly as it is against Npower! - you really cannot have it both ways.

samsmoot

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

If you want to introduce time to the debate, in England and Wales there is a 6 year statute whereby a creditor can claim a debt.

Underpaying for something for which you agreed to pay more for does constitute a debt, even if it was committed in error.

"Probably would have gone bust" and "bad business practice" are just semantics.

Sure - no argument there. But failure to act reasonably quickly could be construed as negligent and therefore not something the customer should be penalised for. Wholesale mismanagement of the process of charging is a bit different to an administrative error or two, and something Npower had under their control but failed to rectify over a long period.


To be perfectly honest I'd think I'd have a reasonable argument for such backdated charges being unfair due to the oldness of them, the numerous errors, and the large amount of difference expected to be paid. And as I said earlier, acceptance of the payment as settlement of the debt at that time meant that the debt was actually then discharged as applied for.


Fairness and reasonableness comes into it so I'd feel confident of getting some sympathy from a judge.