British Gas removes guarantee dates from SoLR tariffs...

StartledJesus

lisyloo said:

StartledJesus said:

@AbbieCadabra Yes, was just about to cross reference this myself. Poster @indebt80 seems to have had a positive outcome on this issue from the Ombudsman. Surely that must set a precedent. 

There was bad mishandling of this case. That doesn’t set a precedent for everyone getting £100.
i got £50 for zero fix errors, others got £30.

it was compensation for the mis-handling and typo, not for losing the fix.

Who said anything about the fix? Not me. 

lisyloo

StartledJesus said:

lisyloo said:

StartledJesus said:

@AbbieCadabra Yes, was just about to cross reference this myself. Poster @indebt80 seems to have had a positive outcome on this issue from the Ombudsman. Surely that must set a precedent. 

There was bad mishandling of this case. That doesn’t set a precedent for everyone getting £100.
i got £50 for zero fix errors, others got £30.

it was compensation for the mis-handling and typo, not for losing the fix.

Who said anything about the fix? Not me. 

I did not say you said anything about the fix x

i felt it was important to highlight the fact that the award was for lack of service (inconsistent amounts) as opposed to honouring the contract. That is particularly important for anyone thinking of small claims.

lisyloo

beefturnmail said:

lisyloo said:

beefturnmail said:

What a load of nonsense, they can't wriggle out of this any more than I could by agreeing to sell a house at one price, exchanging contracts and then claiming a higher price on completion. 

Clearly they have screwed up and are trying to limit the cost of their error by fobbing people off, in the knowledge that only a small percentage will go to the ombudsman and/or small claims.

What makes you think they can’t?
Your second paragraph pretty much says they mostly can and they mostly will 

They can't wriggle out of it for anyone prepared to enforce it

Can you explain why you believe that.
has a single case been enforced?

Apologies if I missed something, but I think this is the crux of the matter needing clarification.

StartledJesus

@lisyloo I note that you have edited your original response. 

lisyloo

StartledJesus said:

@lisyloo I note that you have edited your original response. 

My aim is to get to the bottom of the legal situation I apologise if I’ve slipped up anywhere in my communication. 
a statement about the nature of the compensation was not an accusation and I’m sorry if it came across to you that way. 

the important issue here is to clarify the legal situation and I believe there is so far no evidence of the BG contract being enforced although I’d be delighted to see any evidence of legal precedent for enforcing any contract where “typos” have been made.
this is the important matter for both this contract and any other similar situations in future.

I don’t believe typos are enforceable but I’m interested to know/see what happens where the typo wasn’t obvious and a loss has been incurred as a result.

Ultrasonic

morhen said:

I can one up the removal of guarantee dates from SoLR tariffs...they have removed the SoLR tariff completely! I am going on the standard variable tarriff as apparently, that is all the computer said I can have. 

Don't worry, what you will actually pay won't be any different since both will be at the price cap.

(I believe Octopus had one SOLR tariff a tiny amount below cap but I don't recall seeing anything about a BG SOLR tariff that was.)

beefturnmail

lisyloo said:

StartledJesus said:

@lisyloo I note that you have edited your original response. 

My aim is to get to the bottom of the legal situation I apologise if I’ve slipped up anywhere in my communication. 
a statement about the nature of the compensation was not an accusation and I’m sorry if it came across to you that way. 

the important issue here is to clarify the legal situation and I believe there is so far no evidence of the BG contract being enforced although I’d be delighted to see any evidence of legal precedent for enforcing any contract where “typos” have been made.
this is the important matter for both this contract and any other similar situations in future.

I don’t believe typos are enforceable but I’m interested to know/see what happens where the typo wasn’t obvious and a loss has been incurred as a result.

I'm no legal expert, but I agree you're right that a court wouldn't enforce something which was obviously a typo in a contract.  However I would argue that in this case, it was not obviously a typo.   See here https://www.azmilaw.com/insights/courts-decision-on-obvious-typo-errors-in-contracts/

"The Court of Appeal in the case of Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd[4], discussed on test of construction of a document. The court stated as follows:

“In English law as a general principle the question is not what the writer of the document intended or meant but what a reasonable man reading the document would understand it to mean; and that, I think, is the test which ought to be applied as a general rule in cases of misnomer.”"

So if British Gas had put "prices guaranteed until 31 July 2092" when they meant 31 July 2022 then that's obviously a typo to a reasonable person which couldn't be legally enforced.   But by putting "prices guaranteed until 31 July 2022" when the meant "not applicable"  I don't think is obviously a typo to a reasonable person - tariffs with prices guaranteed for periods up to 2 years are common place so why would a reasonable person think this was a typo?

The link above also gives an example (albeit under Malysian law) where a typo was not upheld and one reason supporting this decision was "Further, the typographical errors were made known to the plaintiff almost immediately upon being spotted, by way of a letter." The opposite of what BG have done, indeed they appear to have acted in a slightly underhand way, and secretly removed the 'typo' from their website some 2-3 months after it was issued...

It can't be the case that all "typos" are unenforceable by law, as then that would be an immediate watertight defence to anyone being sued for breach of contract...

BobT36

beefturnmail said:

lisyloo said:

StartledJesus said:

@lisyloo I note that you have edited your original response. 

My aim is to get to the bottom of the legal situation I apologise if I’ve slipped up anywhere in my communication. 
a statement about the nature of the compensation was not an accusation and I’m sorry if it came across to you that way. 

the important issue here is to clarify the legal situation and I believe there is so far no evidence of the BG contract being enforced although I’d be delighted to see any evidence of legal precedent for enforcing any contract where “typos” have been made.
this is the important matter for both this contract and any other similar situations in future.

I don’t believe typos are enforceable but I’m interested to know/see what happens where the typo wasn’t obvious and a loss has been incurred as a result.

It can't be the case that all "typos" are unenforceable by law, as then that would be an immediate watertight defence to anyone being sued for breach of contract...

Yup, also unsure how it would be taken into account legally, but there's also evidence that they made this same (but different value) "typo" on other tariffs, enforcing consistency of their intentions.
 
The communication that followed also didn't point to this being a true "typo", with some staff saying typo (which doesn't explain the other tarrifs), and other staff giving other reasons. If it really was a typo, there would have been consistent messaging from the staff, this isn't the case, which points to something else. 

MWT

lisyloo said:

StartledJesus said:

@lisyloo I note that you have edited your original response. 

My aim is to get to the bottom of the legal situation I apologise if I’ve slipped up anywhere in my communication. 
a statement about the nature of the compensation was not an accusation and I’m sorry if it came across to you that way. 

the important issue here is to clarify the legal situation and I believe there is so far no evidence of the BG contract being enforced although I’d be delighted to see any evidence of legal precedent for enforcing any contract where “typos” have been made.
this is the important matter for both this contract and any other similar situations in future.

I don’t believe typos are enforceable but I’m interested to know/see what happens where the typo wasn’t obvious and a loss has been incurred as a result.

I have suggested a few times that the route most likely to deliver a worthwhile outcome is not to seek enforcement of the guarantee, but to seek compensation for the damages caused by reliance on the 'mistake'.

The tariff details have always been contradictory, but it was the large print that said it was guaranteed, and the small footnote that said it wasn't.

BG failed to exercise due diligence in checking their original copy multiple times and failed to promptly fix the mistake.

When customers asked CS for confirmation about the guarantee they were told that it was a fixed price.

In reliance on those facts customers did not seek to fix elsewhere and by the time it became clear that it was not a fixed price many alternative options to fix had been withdrawn or replaced by more expensive alternatives.

I highly doubt that Ofgem are going to force BG to honour a mistake, but it should be possible to get compensation for the damage that has resulted from reliance on their mistake... 

lisyloo

I agree that the typo was not obvious to the non-professional consumer.
I’d like to think I would pursue it (if I wasn’t on a fix) and I’m in the habit of keeping transcripts for anything I May need to rely on (and making my own, not relying on getting the emails which sometimes don’t show up).