Shell Energy - New Fixed Tariff with pending sale of business

FrankMT

Alnat1 said:

If it might be a problem to you, why don't you switch the account now to a company you would want to be with (that also has a decent fix?) so you don't end up with a company you don't want to be with.

But then the new company might sell up after I fix with them.

CSI_Yorkshire

FrankMT said:

Alnat1 said:

If it might be a problem to you, why don't you switch the account now to a company you would want to be with (that also has a decent fix?) so you don't end up with a company you don't want to be with.

But then the new company might sell up after I fix with them.

As they are entirely allowed to do.

FrankMT

[Deleted User] said:

"How so?" Because the parties to the contract form an important part of the contract.

I return to my earlier point. Company B pays £50M in goodwill to takeover 1M customers from Company A. 500K of Customer A’s new customers have a problem with Company B’s ethos and expect to be able to leave without paying exit fees. If this was to happen, then it would stop company mergers and acquisitions in their tracks. The simple truth is that if the new company is prepared to honour your original contract terms you have not been financially disadvantaged by the sale of Shell Energy to A N Other. 

If those 500K customers are not in a fixed contract, they can transfer without penalty.  The buying company takes that risk when making the acquisition. My point is that when you enter a fixed term contract with a particular supplier, the new supplier should not be allowed to charge an exit fee if the change to the contract was instigated by the other party.
I know you're playing "business advocate" here, but I'm just playing "consumer advocate". 

FrankMT

CSI_Yorkshire said:

You're not forced to do business with any supplier for any longer than the time taken to switch.  It's the same for a supplier merger/takeover as it is for a supplier failure or for you moving house.

It might look unfair to you, but as far as I know you don't define contract law just by feeling hard done by.

What would you prefer?  On any of the situations I mentioned above, your contracts are automatically cancelled and you no longer have a right to use energy until you sign another?

If your new supplier can't just cancel the fixed contract that you are on (which could be cheaper than any other contract they offer, so they would like to), then neither can you.

Hi,
I'm trying to understand contract law, rather than define it ;-)

This is under Shell's terms for moving home under a fixed contract:

8.2 If you terminate your contract during a fixed term period because you are moving home you may be required to pay an early exit fee. We will agree to waive early exit fees in certain circumstances however this must be agreed between you and us prior to your home move and in all cases would require you to register your new property with us within an agreed period of time.

So, if I move home, I pay an exit fee (unless agreed with Shell), as they deem that as the consumer ending the agreement (even though the consumer would continue to pay for energy at the new address).  But the company can "move house" by selling the business elsewhere, and I have no say on whether I agree?

[Deleted User]

FrankMT said:

[Deleted User] said:

"How so?" Because the parties to the contract form an important part of the contract.

I return to my earlier point. Company B pays £50M in goodwill to takeover 1M customers from Company A. 500K of Customer A’s new customers have a problem with Company B’s ethos and expect to be able to leave without paying exit fees. If this was to happen, then it would stop company mergers and acquisitions in their tracks. The simple truth is that if the new company is prepared to honour your original contract terms you have not been financially disadvantaged by the sale of Shell Energy to A N Other. 

If those 500K customers are not in a fixed contract, they can transfer without penalty.  The buying company takes that risk when making the acquisition. My point is that when you enter a fixed term contract with a particular supplier, the new supplier should not be allowed to charge an exit fee if the change to the contract was instigated by the other party.
I know you're playing "business advocate" here, but I'm just playing "consumer advocate". 

True - but any supplier looking to takeover Shell would take that into account before offering a goodwill payment.  If you genuinely feel that all exit fees should be waived on a company sale when there is no breach of contract, then this is something for your MP or The Competition Markets Authority. 

I used to work in the civilian aviation sector. My old company now offers aircraft with crews to airlines such as Jet2; TUI and Titan on what is known as a damp lease contract. The aircraft is owned; insured; maintained and operated on behalf of Jet2 etc. Are you suggesting that Jet2 holidaymakers that travelled to Alicante this morning on an AirTanker Airbus A330 should have been entitled to refuse to fly with a full refund? Similar to energy supply companies selling on their business, this possibility is covered in the terms and conditions of the contract that consumers agreed to when they signed up for their holiday.

FrankMT

[Deleted User] said:

Are you suggesting that Jet2 holidaymakers that travelled to Alicante this morning on an AirTanker Airbus A330 should have been entitled to refuse to fly with a full refund? Similar to energy supply companies selling on their business, this possibility is covered in the terms and conditions of the contract that consumers agreed to when they signed up for their holiday.

Interesting analogy.  I suppose that is what I am suggesting.  If the alternative companies are listed in the Jet2 contract, then fine; the consumer has agreed. But can a contract be enforced where the company says it can do whatever it likes and the consumer has to put up with it?  Obviously not, so the question comes down to how far the company can go before it is deemed an important change.

In your analogy, I can't see any passengers having an issue with using an AirTanker Airbus A330, as long as it gets them to Alicante as agreed.  And I can't see many customers of Shell having an issue with a new supplier's name on their bill, as long as they still get energy supplied at the same price.  But what if you found out after you bought your ticket with Jet2 that your flight was going to be handled by Aeroflot (impossible, I know, but for the sake of argument).

In the example I'm talking about, where the actual parties to the contract are changing, I would say that's a change that is important enough for the customer to have a say over whether they agree to it.  And, yes, it might make it more difficult, more risky or more expensive for the business world.  I just think the consumer should have that right: the consumer chooses the company they want to do business with, not the other way around.

Just my opinion :-)

CSI_Yorkshire

And you therefore agree that it should also be allowed the other way around?  That the new supplier could decide it didn't want to be a party to the contract and can cancel your fixed rate?

FrankMT

CSI_Yorkshire said:

And you therefore agree that it should also be allowed the other way around?  That the new supplier could decide it didn't want to be a party to the contract and can cancel your fixed rate?

I get what you're saying, but it's not a case of wanting to be party to the contract (between me and the supplier), but party to a new contract with a completely different supplier.  Shell can't decide to cancel the fixed rate in the contract without being in breach... and I don't know, but I would imagine I would be due some form of compensation.  I can't decide to leave Shell and exit the contract without paying the penalty (exit fee).  But I should be able to decide if I agree to the new contract (i.e. with a new supplier).

I'm genuinely interested in all of these points of view.  To be honest, I'm surprised so many seem to be "siding with" the business world's interests, rather than the consumer's rights.  Not having a pop at anyone (everyone entitled to their opinion), just surprised in this supposed age of "the customer is king", and on a forum on a website with the tagline "... fighting your corner". 

CSI_Yorkshire

Yes, your point is that you should not be held to the contract because one party has changed and therefore it is a new contract 

Fine, and if that's your point then the new company should also not be held to the contract because the parties have changed.

I'm not talking about Shell breaking the existing contract, and neither are you.  You are expecting supplier X, who buys Shell's business, to be held to the contract but that you should not be.  Either both are or neither are.

[Deleted User]

To be honest, I'm surprised so many seem to be "siding with" the business world's interests, rather than the consumer's rights.  Not having a pop at anyone (everyone entitled to their opinion), just surprised in this supposed age of "the customer is king", and on a forum on a website with the tagline "... fighting your corner". 

It is not a question of siding with big business. All energy supply contract terms and conditions make it clear that they can assign; transfer; sell etc your contract to another supplier. This is what it states in my Octopus Energy contract:

1. We may transfer, subcontract, assign or novate any or all of our rights (including the right to recover the charges) or obligations under the Contract without your consent, but this will not affect your rights under the Contract.

By all means ‘fight your corner’ but I am still struggling to understand why you think you should be able to bail out of fixed tariff with exit fees without suffering any penalty.