Bills addressed to "the occupier"

stimpo

legaleagle wrote: »

Terrylw1,

The position on pre-payment meters much depends on the precise circumstances, the history, matters surrounding installation and what happens immediately afterwards. PP meters are usually set at a different tariff and in addition are often set to recover outstanding monies. Most installations come pre-loaded with a nominal amount of credit.

(1) If the tariff is a higher tariff, or (2) The customer is in dispute about the outstanding bill and no court order has been made as to determination and payment of outstanding monies, the customer can reject the new tariff in toto. There are certain steps that must be followed to reject the tariff.

We have already advised one of our Clients on this, and were able to reject the tariff, do a transfer of supplier, where previous objections were made, and get the prepayment removed and replaced with a standard meter with the new supplier. What happened here is that the supplier did not get consent to the new tariff.

As you know I've been over the question of terms already, and this case is no different. If the [new] terms were not known to the consumer [at or before the time of fitting PPM] and was given no choice then consumer can rescind on grounds. As to precisely what the consumer does immediately after the PPM is fitted could be very important. For example I would not advise any consumer in this situation to add any funds to the card unless they wish to be bound to contract terms by conduct. Very important point.

I hope that may illuminate the matter somewhat. Obviously the precise circumstances surrounding each case will be different, but there are some basic fundamentals, if the consumer's consent to PPM was not obtained, then consumer is not bound to accept a supply under the [new] terms.

You owe us money and we dont need to enter your property we dont need to go to court.

We only need a court warrant to enter the property, not to remove or change the meter.

Finally if you dont top the meter up because you are on some form of moral crusade you sit in the dark, its your choice. If your a new occupier rpove it to us and the PPM will be removed.

Terrylw1

legaleagle wrote: »

Terrylw1,

The position on pre-payment meters much depends on the precise circumstances, the history, matters surrounding installation and what happens immediately afterwards. PP meters are usually set at a different tariff and in addition are often set to recover outstanding monies. Most installations come pre-loaded with a nominal amount of credit.

(1) If the tariff is a higher tariff, or (2) The customer is in dispute about the outstanding bill and no court order has been made as to determination and payment of outstanding monies, the customer can reject the new tariff in toto. There are certain steps that must be followed to reject the tariff.

We have already advised one of our Clients on this, and were able to reject the tariff, do a transfer of supplier, where previous objections were made, and get the prepayment removed and replaced with a standard meter with the new supplier. What happened here is that the supplier did not get consent to the new tariff.

As you know I've been over the question of terms already, and this case is no different. If the [new] terms were not known to the consumer [at or before the time of fitting PPM] and was given no choice then consumer can rescind on grounds. As to precisely what the consumer does immediately after the PPM is fitted could be very important. For example I would not advise any consumer in this situation to add any funds to the card unless they wish to be bound to contract terms by conduct. Very important point.

I hope that may illuminate the matter somewhat. Obviously the precise circumstances surrounding each case will be different, but there are some basic fundamentals, if the consumer's consent to PPM was not obtained, then consumer is not bound to accept a supply under the [new] terms.

Thanks for the response.

The scenario I am trying to highlight here is where a new occupier purchases the property and upon moving finds a PP meter registered to say BGas. Now, the new occupier was with say SP at their old property, hence wishes to register to them. So, doesn't wish to be supplied by BGas.

Now the registration is going to take at least a week or 2 before SP will be able to issue their own payment card to the occupier. So, in the meantime they have to be supplied by BGas using their payment card.

Now, you have stated throughout yours posts that if terms are unknown, you have a case to not pay. However in this scenario the customer either buys credit for power or sits in the dark until the change of suply goes through.

If they ant the meter changed to credit with BGas in this scenario, they will want them to open an account and perform a credit check.

So, this example ties in with your point on deemed contracts. However, there is no allowance for the customer to obtain power with paying and there is certainly no obligation on the Supplier to fit a credit meter if the customer is refused the credit check or how to pay.

The question of higher tariffs will happen where a warrant is enforced to fit a PP meter. However, in the case of a change of occupier, a new occupier can be forced into this physically. Now whilst you may be able to take this to court and fight for someones rights, they have no power in the meantime.

The point you make about not adding funds is what I have been trying to get at. I'm glad you agree on that. However, no credit, no power with PP's.

I agree fully with you on the issue over new occupiers having to move into properties and be lumbered with a potentially higher tariff than they had in their previous property. However, in the case of a house sale the consumer has plenty of opportunity to arrange a transfer of Supplier ready for their occupation date.

Suppliers leave the fuses in to help consumers the only other way for them is to fit a PP meter in every property or pull the fuses when they are notified of a consumer leaving a property.

legaleagle_2

I have offered my knowledge here in order to help people, who are prepared to disect the facts and apply some logical thinking.

I do not appreciate being misrepresented by Cardew, as to what I have stated.

Cardew

legaleagle wrote: »

I have offerend my knowledge here in order to help people, who are prepared to disect the facts and apply some logical thinking.

I do not appreciate being misrepresented by Cardew, as to what I have stated.

It is immaterial what you appreciate or not.

However let us talk about misrepresentation.

You claim to be a practicing solicitor; I say I don’t believe you.

You were challenged on that point by other people two years ago, who warned people off contacting you – and didn’t respond.

Just read this thread again and see what the majority of people think of your input; not just I.

Government agencies and Utility Companies state unequivocally that deemed contracts exist for Gas and Electricity supplies and quote chapter and verse of the Act that authorizes deemed contracts.

You disagree stating “Deemed contracts are an invention of suppliers.”

So it seems that your contention must be that the Government agencies/all suppliers are mistaken at best, or guilty of deliberate misrepresentation and/or deception at worse.

If you are a practicing solicitor and are prepared to offer advice for free; why don’t you say who you are and who you represent. Why hide behind a cloak of anonymity

You surely would have nothing to fear from the Law Society for such a noble gesture as offering free advice?

Indeed why not enlist the assistance of the Law Society in taking action against the suppliers who have "invented" deemed contracts.

So pray tell me how I am misrepresenting you?

Pixie28

leqaleaqle, Terryw1 and Cardew....I find your debates throughout this board very entertaining (in a good way!).

leqaleaqle, sorry but I am afraid that on all occasions, I must side with with Terryw1 and Cardew....you posts are filled with nonsensical jargon that are tiresome and confusing to read. I also feel that some of your views are lacking in knowledge and very misleading. “Deemed contracts are an invention of suppliers.”...well that says it all really.

legaleagle_2

With regard to your question, terrylw1, and yours of 24th October, the position is particularly relevant to the point you made, that a consumer may not have been told or consented to a higher tariff programmed into a PPM. It does not matter how the PPM came to be there, the consumer has the right at any time to refuse the terms, including those as to price. Even if a court has ordered a PPM be installed, the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a disadvantageous tariff.

For those who are interested, these are areas in which I & my colleagues have a special interest.

Finally for those who have connections with suppliers, the comments provided are not beneficial. I do not expect that any supplier connections or employees of suppliers will feel naturally inspired to agree with my comments.

One respondent has made the observation that suppliers are never interested in this argument. Assuming the respondent is referring to the exact points I made in the scenario I raised, I do not expect such suppliers to be "interested", so to speak, in these arguments; which by their very nature turn on precise legal points and the facts of each individual case. No reader of this place should place undue weight on such comments, especially where the respondent is connected with a supplier.

It is clear that even with such a good place for exchange of information, consumers must be especially sure to balance all the information and come to considered and researched conclusions on the weight of the facts and to disregard all opinion not supported by evidence.

Terrylw1

legaleagle wrote: »

With regard to your question, terrylw1, and yours of 24th October, the position is particularly relevant to the point you made, that a consumer may not have been told or consented to a higher tariff programmed into a PPM. It does not matter how the PPM came to be there, the consumer has the right at any time to refuse the terms, including those as to price. Even if a court has ordered a PPM be installed, the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a disadvantageous tariff.

quote]

Yes, but the point is - how does the consumer get power? They have no ability to unless they pay for tokens and hence commit themselves.

The Supplier will not change the meter if the customer is refusing to pay them since the PP meter will do the job and force them.

So, legal action in your opinion would be needed to resolve this.

The question still remains though - no power until the case is resolved.

They can't go to Energywatch or Ofgem since they support the Suppliers in this case.

legaleagle_2

Cardew, if you have some evidence that I claimed to be a practising solicitor, please post it here. What you seem to be doing is misrepresenting what I actually wrote.

legaleagle_2

If any respondent here has some material to provide to support the arguments such as what government agencies & utility suppliers etc say in reference to "deemed contracts", please also post reference to such information here. It is easy to misunderstand the whole thing unless you first understand what is actually being referred to by the expression "deemed contract". I have covered this point already; deemed contracts in the context of a consumer, are an invention of suppliers. This is because they are often referred to by utility suppliers in the context of a consumer agreement to take a supply. The expression "deemed contract" actually only relates to the right of which a supplier may avail themselves, by the statutes, to continue a supply to a premises they already supply. That is why "deemed contracts" in relation to consumers are in invention of suppliers. A supply to a premises is not a supply contract with a consumer.

If any respondent remains unclear on this latter point, refer to the Utilities Act 200. Readers will note that the Act does not extend to consumer contract terms. There is not intended to be an overlap with consumer protection regulations. Check out the Distance Selling Regulations, especially the 2005 amendment, and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations.

If any respondent feels that information I've provided is unclear or confusing please illuminate here on precisely what point the confusion has arisen and I will try to clarify.

Finally, I decided to offer guidance here because I felt there would be great benefit if consumers were alerted to the manner in which they may easily be hoodwinked. Merely failing to mention something material in relation to the formation of contract is sufficient to set the contract aside.

legaleagle_2

Terrylw1, I'm afraid there is no elegant solution. One has to make moves and know how to make them. I hope I've illuminated a couple of ways on which a consumer may proceed to eject a supplier from their home. Our group has been successful in the past in forcing a supply change where the consumer was faced with a bad deal, apparently difficult or nigh impossible to get out of. Those consumers also had approached EnergyWatch and been giving the same misleading advice that they send out to everyone who enquires about "deemed contracts".

What we prefer to do is get the supplier into the right squares on our chessboard and then we pull the rug. Obviously each individual case differs, but the principle is the same. If the terms were not made known to the consumer at or before the time they were enforced, then the contract may be rescinded on grounds.

Sorry I can offer no useful advice as to whether a consumer has power or gas, unless they pay the meter. I can only suggest they make sure they notify the supplier at the earliest opportunity by recorded mail, that they do not agree the terms of the supply, and the letter is notification that the contract is rescinded on grounds [whatever the grounds are that apply in that case, suffice to say they must be legitimate grounds].

So, step (1) notify contract rescinded on grounds, and (2) use the grounds to force a change of supply. Suggest best reading material to start for any consumer is Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Distance Selling regulations with the 2005 amendment.

Remember, the supplier must invariably first be positioned by proper case management, into a prima facie deceit or bad faith situation, before one can employ techniques to enforce a change of supplier. Reading the statutes and understanding what the provisions are that are relevant to yours or a particular case, is most important, because any action needs to be framed as a breach of the provisions of the particular statute(s). That's why positioning is important. Its no good just using grounds such as "their deal was bad and I don't like it". One has to attack these mis-sellers with the legislation on precisely the right grounds. I know you will appreciate how impossible it is for me to be more precise.

If well planned, the consumer does not need to be out of supply. We have organised it in the past so the cut off guy comes with the reconnect guy. In several cases they were the same guy, who actually went through the disconnect physically and then did the reconnect, which was bizarre. In the cases of PPM, then the meter was changed on the reconnect. In only one case we were forced to obtain an order that the supplier to remove the supply and their equipment, which included the electrical meter. Fortunately in that case, there was no delay in restoring supply because the new supplier was very diligent to deal with our Client's particular issue, which was openly discussed with the new supplier. They were thus particularly co-operative.