About to sue Scottish Power

ariarnia

when we booked our electric smart meter install i remember we had to answer a few questions like was the meter accessible was there parking etc. cant remember them all but there were like 5 or 6 (that was with eon btw). 

GDB2222

[Deleted User] said:

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.

What started all this for me was the message I received from SP telling me that they were going to charge me £60 for the failed appointment.  I'd have mentioned it if there had been some problem with the access to the meter. 

Of course, I complained back near the beginning of Feb, including to the CEO's office. They didn't even log it as a complaint until I emailed the CEO. 

EssexHebridean

It doesn't matter if they logged it or not - you complained, presumably have proof of that (a sent email, for example) and so the clock started ticking for the Ombudsman escalation.  I'm assuming here that the complaint was sent to the correct department as well as to the CEO's office? 

I genuinely think you are likely to get more of a compensation payment by going to the Ombudsman that you would be likely to get by taking this to court without following due process - and with far less of a risk of ending up out of pocket. 

ariarnia

and you can always reject the ombudsman's finding and go to court after if you want (tho i expect the ombudsman report would influence the court decision)

GDB2222

EssexHebridean said:

It doesn't matter if they logged it or not - you complained, presumably have proof of that (a sent email, for example) and so the clock started ticking for the Ombudsman escalation.  I'm assuming here that the complaint was sent to the correct department as well as to the CEO's office? 

I genuinely think you are likely to get more of a compensation payment by going to the Ombudsman that you would be likely to get by taking this to court without following due process - and with far less of a risk of ending up out of pocket. 

I'm a bit lost. I thought I have followed due process?

I have grappled with their CS department for 6 or 7 weeks. I have sent a LBA, giving them 2 weeks to respond. They haven't bothered.

Which part of the pre-action protocol do you think I have failed to comply with? 

I complained to SP in writing on 10/2/23, so I have to wait until 7 April before going to the Ombudsman. Or, I can issue proceedings today. Why would I wait?

Nebulous2

There is no need to wait. They are two different tracks, the legal one and / or complaints followed by the ombudsman. People usually recommend that first you exhaust the complaint and ombudsman, as it is no cost, but you don't need to. 

The courts have a backlog, which is sometimes cited as a reason not to go there, but most ombudsman services have the same. 

I haven't followed all of this, and the story has developed and become increasingly complicated, so you would need to be sure of your ground if you go to court. 

You are likely to be asked what steps you have taken to resolve it before going to court, and you may be recommended to try some kind of mediation service first. 

Sometimes for me, with a bit of time, the heat goes out of the situation and a full-on conflict doesn't seem worth it, even when I do feel I have been wronged. 

[Deleted User]

Sometimes for me, with a bit of time, the heat goes out of the situation and a full-on conflict doesn't seem worth it, even when I do feel I have been wronged. 

One of the most sensible points made today. 

ariarnia

GDB2222 said:

I'm a bit lost. I thought I have followed due process?

I have grappled with their CS department for 6 or 7 weeks. I have sent a LBA, giving them 2 weeks to respond. They haven't bothered.

Which part of the pre-action protocol do you think I have failed to comply with? 

I complained to SP in writing on 10/2/23, so I have to wait until 7 April before going to the Ombudsman. Or, I can issue proceedings today. Why would I wait?

the industry standard process for energy is to follow the supplier's complaints process then escalate to the ombudsman then if not happy with the ombudsman verdict to go to court. 

the courts encourage the use of mediation services and that is what the ombudsman basically is. and with the waiting times on court cases then there's a reasonable chance your case will be resolved sooner via the ombudsman adjudication process (where you and the supplier can discuss on the portal and reach an agreement at any time without a formal judgement).

plus taking a supplier to the ombudsman, even just lodging a case, costs them money (something like £300 which then goes up if a judgement is needed). not just the cost of their representation in court. 

especially given your case is more complicated than your first post suggested, why would you pay a fee to go to court when you could go via the ombudsman at no charge and still go to court later if you arent happy? 

EssexHebridean

GDB2222 said:

EssexHebridean said:

It doesn't matter if they logged it or not - you complained, presumably have proof of that (a sent email, for example) and so the clock started ticking for the Ombudsman escalation.  I'm assuming here that the complaint was sent to the correct department as well as to the CEO's office? 

I genuinely think you are likely to get more of a compensation payment by going to the Ombudsman that you would be likely to get by taking this to court without following due process - and with far less of a risk of ending up out of pocket. 

I'm a bit lost. I thought I have followed due process?

I have grappled with their CS department for 6 or 7 weeks. I have sent a LBA, giving them 2 weeks to respond. They haven't bothered.

Which part of the pre-action protocol do you think I have failed to comply with? 

I complained to SP in writing on 10/2/23, so I have to wait until 7 April before going to the Ombudsman. Or, I can issue proceedings today. Why would I wait?

I'd advise waiting and going to the Ombudsman first purely because for such a small claim, it may well appear that the LBA and subsequent court action is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - yours is exactly the sort of situation that the Ombudsman Service is there to deal with.  The risk you have otherwise is that - as said earlier in the thread, your decision to jump straight to court action for a small sum involved will appear vexatious and as though you are simply trying to cause inconvenience. As a general rule, courts dislike feeling that they are having their time wasted. 

And yes - a further round of applause from here for Nebulous's final para. 

macman

Rather than a 'wrong type of meter for my training' issue, isn't this more likely to be an access or health and safety problem? For example, the meter can only be reached via a ladder or steps, or the meter is mounted on an asbestos backboard? Or there's a snarly dog in the cellar..?