About to sue Scottish Power

GDB2222

macman said:

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..?

Why do people invent things like this? It's just nonsensical.

We have a large house. We have a large meter. The guy said he wasn't trained on that meter, and didn't have any of the stuff needed to replace it in his van. So, he went away.

Then SP told me that they were going to charge me £60 for their incompetence sending the wrong bloke, so I complained. And, they seem incapable of dealing with the complaint.

Mstty

GDB2222 said:

macman said:

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..?

Why do people invent things like this? It's just nonsensical.

We have a large house. We have a large meter. The guy said he wasn't trained on that meter, and didn't have any of the stuff needed to replace it in his van. So, he went away.

Then SP told me that they were going to charge me £60 for their incompetence sending the wrong bloke, so I complained. And, they seem incapable of dealing with the complaint.

Which is why you follow the process and then go to the ombudsman service.

The bad service will get logged and energy suppliers are put into special measures.

Section62

mmmmikey said:

Is pursuing this via the courts really good use of the court's time?

If GDB2222 makes a claim and it gets allocated to the small claims track then the process is largely administrative, so the concept of "court's time" is a bit irrelevant.  The system is set up to process claims (including parking charge cases) in the thousands.... GDB2222's case is not going to overly burden the justice system.

I wouldn't recommend GDB2222 takes court action rather than following the ombudsman process, but equally people shouldn't feel guilt tripped into not using the court process where this is appropriate.

A commercial organisation of the size of SP is skating on thin ice if it completely ignores a letter before action. So in my non-legal view, all bets are off.

macman

GDB2222 said:

macman said:

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..?

Why do people invent things like this? It's just nonsensical.

We have a large house. We have a large meter. The guy said he wasn't trained on that meter, and didn't have any of the stuff needed to replace it in his van. So, he went away.

Then SP told me that they were going to charge me £60 for their incompetence sending the wrong bloke, so I complained. And, they seem incapable of dealing with the complaint.

I'm not 'inventing' anything. I'm merely suggesting reasons why the engineer might have logged it as 'unable to install due to meter type'. You've drip fed the information, so we are only now getting the relevant details of why the install failed. We have no idea how large your house is, or where the meters are located.
Why don't you post a pic of the electricity meter and the adjacent wiring, so that someone with the relevant technical knowledge can suggest what is non-standard about it?
I'm going to propose another possible scenario: you maybe have complex metering (E10 or Heatwise, dual MPAN's), which are not supported by a standard smart meter?
Remember that many smart meter installs are done by 3rd party contractors, not by SP engineeers, so, if they'e messed up, they may be tempted to be less than truthful in their report back to SP, in case they are held liable for the failure.

GDB2222

I would just like to thank everyone who helped. 

Mstty

For a bit more context on this issue

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6424167/time-to-name-and-shame/p1

And on Feb 11th some.good advice to make a complaint. The OP didn't return to that thread so not sure if they made an official complaint.



Then fast forward to 26th March it seems the OP did.not act on the good advice above and instead went their own way.

mmmmikey

If you have one of a number of different standard meter types then it might be reasonable to make the argument that SP should have sent someone out who was trained and had the parts to do the installation.

However, if you have a particularly old or unusual meter and/or unconventional installation then SP are likely to argue that the issue isn't engineer training or parts availability - it's the specialist nature of your particular requirement. The obvious argument would be that it simply doesn't make sense to train every single engineer to replace every obscure meter type and equip them with the parts to do so. I think you will find this difficult to counter and would expect the courts to accept this argument (but I'm not an expert).

You make reference to having already complained to SP - what was your specific complaint and how did they respond? Was your dissatisfaction with their response or the way they handled your complaint? Why?

What reason did they give you for wanting to charge you £60? Was this a charge for the aborted installation (implying that in their eyes you are somehow responsible) or a charge for fitting smart meters if you still want them?

GDB2222

Mstty said:

For a bit more context on this issue

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6424167/time-to-name-and-shame/p1

And on Feb 11th some.good advice to make a complaint. The OP didn't return to that thread so not sure if they made an official complaint.



Then fast forward to 26th March it seems the OP did.not act on the good advice above and instead went their own way.

I have complained. I have mainly been ignored, with the occasional fobbing off. 

If I issue proceedings, it is harder for them to get away with that. I just apply for default judgment, and then send in the bailiffs. 

If I go to the ombudsman, I don’t have any confidence that SP will comply with any award. 

I have a new meter installation appointment scheduled for tomorrow morning, so I’ll see what happens with that.

Section62

mmmmikey said:

However, if you have a particularly old or unusual meter and/or unconventional installation then SP are likely to argue that the issue isn't engineer training or parts availability - it's the specialist nature of your particular requirement. The obvious argument would be that it simply doesn't make sense to train every single engineer to replace every obscure meter type and equip them with the parts to do so. I think you will find this difficult to counter and would expect the courts to accept this argument (but I'm not an expert).

The meters don't belong to GDB2222, the supplier ought to know what meters are fitted at the property, or with a very small amount of effort could find out.  GDB2222's only involvement - AIUI - is to be there to allow the supplier's employee/agent to gain access.

I think the legal arguments in this thread are getting some way ahead of themselves.  I don't see that it is relevant whether or not each individual is trained/equipped to change all meter types. "Reasonableness" is usually a factor in legal action, but in this case how reasonable is it for an electicity supplier not to have a scooby what kind of meter is fitted at a customer's site and to keep an appointment by sending out an operative who cannot do the job?

What really matters here is whether or not the inability of SP to do the work during the arranged appointment is something which triggers a statutory payment.  If it is, then GDB2222 is owed the money.  I think it could be as simple as that.

If I was giving (non-legal) advice to SP then I'd suggest they tread very carefully making an argument that they don't know what type of meter a customer has, and can't organise themselves to send out an appropriately trained operative to do the work.  Electricity can kill.  Sending out random operatives to do work on equipment they aren't trained to work on, in such a haphazard way, is tickling the safety dragon's tail.  If this were to progress to a full court hearing with a judge I don't think it is beyond possible that it could end with a judge (if in a sufficiently bad mood) sending a letter to HSE expressing concern that such practices are going on.

This is planned work.  Planning properly reduces the risk of accidents. Relying on an operative on the ground to correctly identify the equipment and stop working isn't the best way of keeping people safe.  There is a danger of press-on-itis taking over (with a nod to the earlier aviation analogy), whereas there should instead be a safe system of work adopted which ensures correctly trained staff are sent to the jobs their skills are needed for.

MWT

Section62 said:

Relying on an operative on the ground to correctly identify the equipment and stop working isn't the best way of keeping people safe.

A certain amount of that is unavoidable, especially if it is an older installation as the supplier can only work off of the limited details held on the central database, which may not even be completely accurate, so the first job once on site is to verify the nature of the meter and the installation and then form an opinion as to the ability to proceed within the limits of the available equipment and training of the engineer...