Energy Company Sending Debt Collectors

Steve123456789

Houbara wrote: »

Couple of points OP. I hope you provided accurate opening meter readings which should match the outgoing ending meter readings (give or take a unit or two ) around the date you took over the property, not when you moved in.
.Spark Energy who I worked for as a meter reader seemed to specialise in prepayment meters so are the meters in the property prepays.?
You would also be able to assist Spark Energy in finding out the previous occupants and possibly a forwarding address to pointing Spark to the correct person.Has that been possible ?. You would have had lots of letters in the last occupiers name through your letter box no doubt /
When I sold my property my suppliers both wanted the name and address of the new occupant, so did the water company .
Sounds like the last occupier never went by the rules, which is not uncommon especially if they owed debts , in both submitting an end meter reading ( even for prepays ) and a forwarding address.
I found Spark a pretty shambolic supplier to work for and often had customers having a good old rant at me holding up a bunch of bills and letters. Now they have been taken over by Ovo hopefully they re running it better but as the majority of their customers were on prepay meters they faced more problems than most suppliers

Yep, our opening meter readings were bang on.
We moved in the day we completed purchase, so no issue there.
My solicitor has supplied the debt collection agencies and the energy company with the name and address of the previous owner. I wasn't copied into this email because data protection or something, but they've sent the email move than once.

We've done everything perfectly, and Spark have told me that they've updated their records and removed our details from this account in question, but again and again, we receive threatening letters.

Yesterday, I may have got somewhere, but doubt it. I called Spark energy for what was probably the 9,000th time. I explained that they have repeatedly said that they have removed our details from the account for the unpaid bill but we keep getting letters.
The lady went away for a while and came back and said she had passed it on to the IT department. Apparently the name had been updated on the account for the contact details or something, but not the name of the owner of the account. Something like that. More than one place where there's a name on the account. They updated one, but not the other more important one. Not sure how much I believe that, but it's all on the phone and I have none of it in writing anyway. We will see.

Since then, I've recorded a complaint with the ICO, because they are definitely using and distributing my personal data in a way which is not legal/acceptable.
Giving my name and address to debt collection agencies despite the fact that we have told AND PROVEN that we owe them nothing, must be a breach of GDPR.

Steve123456789

Simplycito wrote: »

Post#2 confirms they have not.

I can only suggest you, and all those who find you criticising those here to assist the OP useful, re-read it carefully

I didn't criticise the content of post#2, I simply questioned the validity of it.

Glad that's clear.

Post #2 wasn't written by me, so it can't be used to confirm anything about what I have or haven't done.

As an aside, you're wrong and the person you're arguing with is right. I've done everything except raise an official complaint.
Well, I raised one on the phone a while ago but haven't heard anything about it.

Steve123456789

Simplycito wrote: »

I am aware that the post office does not charge for the receipt, but there is often a cost associated with travelling to and from the post office, particularly with so many post offices have been closed down.

Likewise, the time and effort of actually asking the postmaster may not be the issue, but rather the travelling to and from the post office to obtain the proof is the bigger issue here.

Do you know which law is being referred to by Raxiel? :cool:

You get proof of postage when you go to the post office to post something

*Enter post office with letter*
*give letter to postman and ask for proof of postage*
*take proof of postage from postman and give postman money*
*exit post office*

You haven't actually helped yet - all you've done is argue with every person on this thread, not understand how post offices work, and told someone else that I hadn't done something that I actually had done, despite it literally being written down in the original post on this thread.

[Deleted User]

Spark appear to have all the info needed to recover the money owed , and it could be a considerable debt, from the outgoing occupier. Divorces complicate this sometimes when one side claims the other side owes the money
Suppliers do fear an Energy Ombudsman complaint as they will face fines if they lose. This can be opened , I think its 8 weeks after you formally raised a complaint. I think this has to be done in writing with "Complaint " on the letter to officially start the EO process.

Gerry1

Houbara wrote: »

Suppliers do fear an Energy Ombudsman complaint as they will face fines if they lose. This can be opened , I think its 8 weeks after you formally raised a complaint. I think this has to be done in writing with "Complaint " on the letter to officially start the EO process.

The Energy Ombudsman gets £334 from the energy provider per case that’s brought to them.

The complaint can be submitted by letter, telephone or email.

Steve123456789

They do have all the info required to get the money, but for what seems like admin errors, they just keep coming back to me. I don't get it.

The lady on the phone told me yesterday that the issue will finally be solved, by updating that name on the account. A different field where the name is entered than the one they'd been doing before, but I'm dubious.

Either way, I'm raising a complaint because I want reimbursement for this. Hours of my life I'm not getting back.

Raxiel

Simplycito wrote: »

Thank you.

Can I ask what law in particular yuu are referring to? Again, not criticising before Talldave and his mates jump on me again, just asking for clarification and educational reasons

I see you acknowlege there is no legal issue with email as a form of communication, especially when as I said "many suppliers will send an auto-acknowledgment of receipt, so they can't later claim they never received it even if they don't ever respond. But of cousrse, if no response is receioved, you will probably try again and again, and possibly via another method."

As I also mentioned, "The ombudsman usually accepts proof of email by the sender if they seem a more reliable party than the party in denial."

As regards a phone call, then your telephony company will usually be able to assist in providing evidence of making such a call (inc time of call, duration and receiving number) if the supplier were to foolishly deny having been contacted that way.

I see you now have added the requirement to obtain proof of postage when sending a letter, so yet more expense of time, money & effort for someone wishing to communicate that way.; the requirement to obtain proof of postage was not included in post#2 which is partly why I questioned the poster. Also I see you also specify it must be first class postage, so that's even more expense, again something omitted in post#2.

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act.
I didn't 'Add' anything. I stated that the additional expense of recorded delivery was unnecessary.
Yes, if they don't respond to an email you can try again it depends if you want to make sure the date of contact is fixed, for example when the timer for being able to go to the ombudsman even without a deadlock letter starts

On the subject of the phone, I wouldn't rely on a third party to provide verification after the fact. Personal anecdote, but I had a friend in dispute with the DWP lose a significant amount of money because TalkTalk were unable to provide any usable call logs for the relevant period.


My post was to clarify the significance of the postal service with respect to other forms of communication. You are correct that if the energy company responds to email and the ombudsman accepts them that in this specific case the additional effort of sending a letter may not be strictly necessary, but I would make three points to that:
1) A letter can focus the mind. Perhaps it's just because of 'email overload' but letters, in my experience, can get attention when other forms are being ignored. When I had problems with Iresa, they ignored tickets and emails, and the patience of Job was required to talk to them on the phone. But they acknowledged and then responded to my complaint letter promptly
2) The first avenue for recourse is the suppliers own complaints procedure, then it's the Ombudsman. If they ignore the ombudsman (not unheard of for suppliers already in trouble - for example Iresa again) the final avenue is a Court of Law. A person has to make their own decision if the extra work involved in sending a letter over an email is worth the benefit to their case in the unlikely event

3) In this specific case, while Spark have been communicative, it only seems to be the first line customer support who don't seem to have the power to actually fix the problem. Meanwhile the OP is on the receiving end of harassment from Spark's agents. The most recent post suggests they may have done something different this time so fingers crossed that's the end of it. But if it isn't, Spark are potentially committing a crime under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977 - See Ferguson vs British Gas. I should be clear I don't think it's gone that far yet but if I were in OP's position, I'd have it in the back of my mind in all my dealings with them.

Gerry1

Raxiel wrote: »

Spark are potentially committing a crime under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977 - See Ferguson vs British Gas.

It's probably been overtaken by the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Quoting that to TV Licensing and withdrawing their Implied Right of Access certainly stops all their nastygrams once and for all !

Simplycito

Raxiel wrote: »

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act.
...

References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

That section of an Act originally enacted in 1978 (so well before most people had even heard of email) refers specifically to service (a legal term) of legal documents in connection with litigation.

Moreover, there are several methods that may be used (unless a specific Act states otherwise) of acceptable service of documents (other than the initial claim form) in civil litigation, and they have the following applicable time scales:

(a) Method of service
(b) Deemed date of service

1a. First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day)
1b. The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that day.

2a. Document exchange
2b. The second day after it was left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that day.

3a. Delivering the document to or leaving it at a permitted address
3b. If it is delivered to or left at the permitted address on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day.

4a. Fax
4b. If the transmission of the fax is completed on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on which it was transmitted.

5a. Other electronic method
5b. If the e-mail or other electronic transmission is sent on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on which it was sent.

6a. Personal service
6b. If the document is served personally before 4.30p.m. on a business day, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day.

Source: The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, as amended by the 111th Update, effective from 11am on 09 September 2019.

But as I said, this is all related to legal service of documents related to an act of litigation.

Here, we are simply speaking of contacting a supplier to, at the highest level, simply lodge a complaint with them, and therefore it would be a bit of a stretch to hope to apply any of the above to such a non-litigative action

Steve123456789

So I guess I'll only know if this has worked, by waiting the random amount of time it takes for the next (or most recently, same) debt collector to send me a snotty letter.


We will see.


In the meantime, I'm raising a formal complaint. Email will do. "COMPLAINT" in the subject header should do it, no?