About to sue Scottish Power

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

MWT said:

GDB2222 said:

So, you think it’s £60 compensation, because there are two meters. Whereas, Dolor thinks that it’s just £30.  There was just the one appointment. 

Presumably, both of you agree that there’s also the penalty for missing the 10 days deadline?

My numbers include the compensation for failing to pay.

2 meters + one missed appointment = £30, failure to pay £30 adds £30 = £60

I would point out that the OP hasn't even confirmed if they were notified of a need to change the appointment, since as long as they do that more than 24 hours before the appointment there is nothing to pay at all... 

No, they turned up for the appointment, but the person that came said that he was not trained on my type of meter. 

I wouldn’t have thought that your situation is covered by automatic compensation. You need to raise a complaint against the supplier.

ariarnia

Mstty said:

As above £60 is what you are entitled to but as stated above if you complained back in Feb you can take it to the ombudsman service after 8 weeks and they may award you £60 plus some offer on top for poor customer service. £50-£75.

and if you take it to the ombudsman and in 'ignorance' ask for 30 per meter then with as useless as sp are theres even a chance they wont dispute it and the ombudsman would award it

op are you sure you didn't complain at the time? nothing at all in an email saying you were unhappy and wanted them to sort the problem?

mmmmikey

Forgive me for being blunt, but do you really believe you have a reasonable basis to complain? As I understand it the engineer turned up to change the meters as planned but when he came he found he wasn't able to. I appreciate that is frustrating but to be fair there must have been a good reason and these things happen from time to time. Why not just ask them to make a new appointment? If there had been a string of missed appointments that would be good reason to escalate but it sounds from the way I'm reading this that there is nothing more to this than the engineer attending only to find there is something different about your meters and so another appointment is needed. Is pursuing this via the courts really good use of the court's time?

GDB2222

Reg 3 para 9 says:

(9) In keeping the appointment in accordance with paragraph (8), the supplier must ensure that whoever represents it for that purpose possesses the necessary skills, experience and resources to fulfil the purpose of the appointment as the supplier reasonably understands it.

The chap who turned up admitted that he didn't have the skills. 


And, of course, Reg 8 says:

Suppliers’ payment obligations

8.—(1) A supplier must meet each individual standard of performance set out in regulations 3 to 6.

(2) If a supplier fails to meet any individual standard of performance it must, for each such failure, make a payment of £30 (a “standard payment”) to the customer who is affected by the failure within 10 working days of the supplier’s initial failure to achieve the relevant individual standard of performance.

[Deleted User]

I think that you need to look at the legal definition of the word ‘reasonable’. It is a very low legal bar. Do you have an unusual metering system: if so, did you make the supplier aware of this when the appointment was booked?

Are you seriously going to Court when you do not have a cast-iron case? Worst case, you could end up paying the supplier’s legal fees.

silvercar

Surely it is the suppliers job to send a trained person to do the job? If they need to ask questions to ensure they are sending a suitably trained person then they should ask the questions. They shouldn't just send someone trained on not all types of meter, with the message to check the meter type when they get there!

It's a bit like an airline cancelling a flight because they assign the flight to a random pilot and only when he gets to the plane he reports back that he isn't trained on that plane type.

[Deleted User]

silvercar said:

Surely it is the suppliers job to send a trained person to do the job? If they need to ask questions to ensure they are sending a suitably trained person then they should ask the questions. They shouldn't just send someone trained on not all types of meter, with the message to check the meter type when they get there!

It's a bit like an airline cancelling a flight because they assign the flight to a random pilot and only when he gets to the plane he reports back that he isn't trained on that plane type.

There are two tests in law - reasonable and best. These are usually linked to the word endeavours. Given that most meters are simple meters (as opposed to complex) and located in places where there is access, then it is arguably reasonable for a supplier to send out an installer specifically trained to replace these meters UNLESS the homeowner has drawn the supplier’s attention to the fact that a specially-trained installer was needed. If the legal test that was applied was ‘best’ as opposed to ‘reasonable’, then it would be up to the supplier to pro-actively cover all possible meter and wiring connotations.

I post the above not as a lawyer but as someone who,  as a senior specialist technical adviser, sat through countless hours of commercial and legal discussions on a £Bn+ contract. Trust me, lawyers make a fortune arguing about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in a contract. 

Something else to bear in mind. If I take an organisation to Court, then it is up to me to prove to the Court that the actions of the other party were unreasonable not the other way round. 

Your example falls at the first hurdle I am afraid. No pilot would ever get into the situation that you describe. They are far too many ‘checks and balances’ in the crewing software for that to happen. The checks range from a current licence; type rating; instrument rating; medical; safety equipment training; currency; crew duty/rest times etc etc. Then there is the woman/man-in-the loop who would just say ‘no way’. (Based on 35 years in the air).

GDB2222

[Deleted User] said:

silvercar said:

Surely it is the suppliers job to send a trained person to do the job? If they need to ask questions to ensure they are sending a suitably trained person then they should ask the questions. They shouldn't just send someone trained on not all types of meter, with the message to check the meter type when they get there!

It's a bit like an airline cancelling a flight because they assign the flight to a random pilot and only when he gets to the plane he reports back that he isn't trained on that plane type.

There are two tests in law - reasonable and best. These are usually linked to the word endeavours. Given that most meters are simple meters (as opposed to complex) and located in places where there is access, then it is arguably reasonable for a supplier to send out an installer specifically trained to replace these meters UNLESS the homeowner has drawn the supplier’s attention to the fact that a specially-trained installer was needed. If the legal test that was applied was ‘best’ as opposed to ‘reasonable’, then it would be up to the supplier to pro-actively cover all possible meter and wiring connotations.

I post the above not as a lawyer but as someone who,  as a senior specialist technical adviser, sat through countless hours of commercial and legal discussions on a £Bn+ contract. Trust me, lawyers make a fortune arguing about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in a contract. 

Something else to bear in mind. If I take an organisation to Court, then it is up to me to prove to the Court that the actions of the other party were unreasonable not the other way round. 

Your example falls at the first hurdle I am afraid. No pilot would ever get into the situation that you describe. They are far too many ‘checks and balances’ in the crewing software for that to happen. The checks range from a current licence; type rating; instrument rating; medical; safety equipment training; currency; crew duty/rest times etc etc. Then there is the woman/man-in-the loop who would just say ‘no way’. (Based on 35 years in the air).

 SP are able to raise that sort of argument in court. I think it’s nonsense, as the supplier ought to know exactly what sort of meter is fitted. There’s no reasonable excuse for not knowing. They have the meter number, etc. They just didn’t check.

Will they want to bother, though? Will they even notice the court papers? They seem so disorganised…

MikeyPGT

GDB2222 I would agree with the lack of organisation at SP - I've lost count of the times I've been told things like 'back office aren't able to make calls direct to customers' and 'customer services can't phone back office - we can only email them'!  The fabled 'back office' seems to be the bit of the organisation that is supposed to make things happen, but I'm beginning to think that it doesn't actually exist.

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

[Deleted User] said:

silvercar said:

Surely it is the suppliers job to send a trained person to do the job? If they need to ask questions to ensure they are sending a suitably trained person then they should ask the questions. They shouldn't just send someone trained on not all types of meter, with the message to check the meter type when they get there!

It's a bit like an airline cancelling a flight because they assign the flight to a random pilot and only when he gets to the plane he reports back that he isn't trained on that plane type.

There are two tests in law - reasonable and best. These are usually linked to the word endeavours. Given that most meters are simple meters (as opposed to complex) and located in places where there is access, then it is arguably reasonable for a supplier to send out an installer specifically trained to replace these meters UNLESS the homeowner has drawn the supplier’s attention to the fact that a specially-trained installer was needed. If the legal test that was applied was ‘best’ as opposed to ‘reasonable’, then it would be up to the supplier to pro-actively cover all possible meter and wiring connotations.

I post the above not as a lawyer but as someone who,  as a senior specialist technical adviser, sat through countless hours of commercial and legal discussions on a £Bn+ contract. Trust me, lawyers make a fortune arguing about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in a contract. 

Something else to bear in mind. If I take an organisation to Court, then it is up to me to prove to the Court that the actions of the other party were unreasonable not the other way round. 

Your example falls at the first hurdle I am afraid. No pilot would ever get into the situation that you describe. They are far too many ‘checks and balances’ in the crewing software for that to happen. The checks range from a current licence; type rating; instrument rating; medical; safety equipment training; currency; crew duty/rest times etc etc. Then there is the woman/man-in-the loop who would just say ‘no way’. (Based on 35 years in the air).

 the supplier ought to know exactly what sort of meter is fitted. There’s no reasonable excuse for not knowing. 

Should the supplier also know that the meter is boxed in behind a kitchen cupboard; screwed to an asbestos backboard or there is insufficient space in the meter box to fit a smart meter? Or, as happened to my daughter last December, the supplier booked an appointment without checking first whether it would rain. FWiW, she didn’t qualify for £30 compensation.

I really think that people are making too much of what is just minor inconvenience. The OP hasn’t been left with non-working meters.