Invalid Warrant Forced Entry

matt_drummer

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

matt_drummer said:

From a legal point of view.

Compensation is intended to put you back in the position you would have been in had the error not occurred.

Punitive damages are an amount awarded by a court on top of compensation as form of punishment for negligence or intentional wrong doing.

Any compensation awarded will  be small as no damage was caused. 

To be awarded punitive damages you would have to prove in a court negligence or intentional wrong doing.

The Judge that granted the warrant was not negligent and neither were those who executed the warrant, they did as instructed.

As to whether the energy company was negligent is another matter, an employee making a mistake is not necessarily negligent, just a fact of life.

You would have to prove that the energy company did not follow industry standards in how they deal with matters such as these.

What can I say but the energy company admit they were in the wrong and didn't remove all outstanding warrants and debts attached to the property when I moved in, which they are supposed to do. A previous tenants debts etc are not my issue. They acknowledge all this. Just they say it was an awful mistake, sorry. As you say, no real damage hence it cost them very little to compensate. Cost them more to go through the court process again or have to cancel the third party who executes the warrant. But it's still wrong. They admit it.

And we all agree, it was wrong and must have been an unpleasant experience, a terrible mistake.

It would have cost them less to cancel the execution of the warrant than it will have done for them to let it proceed.

They will not have intentionally executed the warrant knowing it was no longer necessary. It will have cost them the fee to execute, paying for any damage caused and upsetting you. This is not an outcome they would have wanted, they made a mistake.

The good news is nobody was hurt and they didn't damage your property.

Hopefully they will review their processes going forward to ensure that it doesn't happen to anybody else.

BarelySentientAI

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

molerat said:

The warrant clearly states it is to enter the premises, it does not mention the premises rented by, the respondent at the top is pretty much irrelevant.  The entry to the premises was perfectly legal and there is no point going down that route.  Your beef is with the supplier who gained a warrant of entry over a month after they were aware a new tenant had moved in.  Unfortunately with these incompetent energy suppliers the left hand does not talk to the right.  You need to raise a complaint with them and take it to the ombudsman if necessary, they will likely give you £200 to go away.  The newspapers may also like the story, no mentions of illegal though, just incompetent.

Thanks for that. The application was brought by the company that forced entry, presumably on behalf of the energy company. Does that change anything? The energy company are now saying it's all a bit strange and they have finding it difficult to get to the bottom of it.  The person I spoke to last almost suggested the company who forced entry went off on their own bat with this. They offered £100 that phone call.

It does - and treat the 'almost suggestion' from a random CS person as meaning nothing.

Supplier had an unrecovered debt or concern of tampering etc. and could not gain access, told a 3rd party to obtain warrant and proceed with necessary works/inspections.  Now it's off the suppliers list, they have nothing more to do with it.  Change of tenant doesn't necessarily overwrite their concerns or previous debt, so would not be an automatic trigger to change the instructions to the 3rd party.

3rd party goes through the legal process, gets warrant, acts on warrant.  They do not (and many would say should not) have contact with the tenant, occupant, landlord, homeowner etc.  They have no idea if someone has moved out or moved in, and it is essentially irrelevant to them anyway.  Only if their instructions changed would they fail to proceed.

Both parts perfectly legal, supported by the Electricity Act and the Licence Conditions.  Ombudsman might chuck you a few quid, but there are no massive errors here and you haven't suffered a significant loss that needs to be put right, so no precedent for an award over the usual £50 - £150 "shut up and go away" payment.

I'm with the same supplier, who originally told me the error was when they signed me up, someone didn't remove outstanding warrants. However, I now see the warrant was issued on August 9, 5 weeks after I moved in and signed up with the supplier on July 1. They had put a block on electricity supply which they lifted when I moved in - there was no electricity in the house before I signed up. I just find it extraordinary this may be all legal.

Again, in your pursuit of illegality you are misunderstanding the situation.

The date the warrant was issued is irrelevant.  Who happened to be the tenant of the property on the date the warrant was issued is irrelevant.  What two different customer service agents have told you (and I notice that they have told you two completely different and contradictory things, but you are treating both as accurate) is irrelevant.

All that has happened is someone at the supplier hasn't manually revoked the instructions to the 3rd party on the change of customer.  Whether they should or shouldn't, could or couldn't, might need some debate - and that's what your complaint, if you make one, should be about.

Everything here is legal, regardless of how extraordinary you find it.

Yes, they should of course have removed any outstanding warrants etc and they've repeatedly apologised. But they had a few opportunities to rectify it - they took money from the meter to pay the debts of the previous tenant, which I had to call and have rectified. The company that actually forced entry knew it was occupied and that the house was supposed to be empty. Shambolic way to use court warrants to force entry into people's homes. They shouldn't be trusted with warrants in my opinion, they clearly don't care about following due process.

Due process was followed.  Applying for, being granted, and then carrying out a warrant for entry at a named address.

You might want there to be a different process, but that isn't how laws are set.

But they are admitting they were in the wrong? That the warrant should never have been asked for.  They went to court with incorrect information, it shouldn't have happened. Sure, the system someone how allows them to get the warrant when the information supplied is incorrect and old. But that's a flaw. It's not what is supposed to happen.  I'd have let them in if they had asked.

That's completely new information that you have never given us before.

What you have previously said is that the warrant was legitimately asked for and the problem is that it just wasn't cancelled (which might not actually be possible according to some precedents) when they moved out and you moved in.

You are not supposed to be able to just go and get a warrant without due process of informing the person who lives in the property. It should all have been cancelled when I told them I moved in and they signed me up. As I live here and the property is in my name they would need to go through the process with me and name me in any court order, all afresh. They get away with it is all so they don't care - what's £100 to them if the person can be bothered complaining. But it's supposed to work this way.

Who said that they didn't inform the person living in the property at the point when the warrant was applied for?

Speculation here, but it would not be unusual for the application to have been made in July, and something sent to say "you have 8 weeks to respond".  You (according to the dates you put up earlier) wouldn't have seen that letter.

When there was no response, the warrant was issued, hence the date on it (after you took over).  They don't need to write again to say "you didn't answer, so we've issued a warrant".

They would not "need to go through the process with me and name me in any court order, all afresh"

You are confusing "how I would like warrants to work" and "how warrants actually work".

When they signed me up and I told them I had moved it should all have been cancelled. The warrant wasn't issued in the knowledge by the judge that I was living here. The information supplied to court was incorrect. Even if they were in possession of the warrant before I moved in they still shouldn't have executed it knowing I had moved in. Just they get away with it - claim admin error etc. Third party forcing entry helps here.  It's a farce really. It's just not criminal because they get a court order. Shouldn't happen though, hence they say sorry, our fault, admin error, here's £100.

They claim it's a mistake. But you can't go around applying for warrants and executing them knowing the information upon which the warrant was granted is incorrect. Or rather, I should say, shouldn't. Once they know I am living here and it's in my name that all has to go through me and be in my name. 

Imagine if just ringing up the supplier and saying "I'm now the account holder" cancelled all warrants.

What's to stop someone just doing that every 6 weeks and avoiding any access.

I didn't just say I am living here. I have an account with them at this address from July 1. I pay them bills in my name at this address. Even the energy company says they should have cancelled all outstanding warrants etc on the house when they signed me up. I think we've gotten too used to these irregularities - it shouldn't happen and the energy suppliers say it shouldn't happen. Hence they offer compensation, putting it all down to clerical or human error.

Super.  I'll run up a debt to the energy supplier, then get someone else to set up an account with my address and I'll never be able to be disconnected.  Use a rotating cast of randoms to string it out.

A random CS agent sympathising with an angry customer on the phone is not very good evidence of what a company should or shouldn't do - hence the 'compensation', which is nothing of the sort, it's a "take this money, shut up and go away" payment.

As for how often something like this happens?  Very very rarely.  Even when there was a huge investigation into fitting prepayment meters in the last couple of years (which often involves the same warrant process), there were a negligible amount of mistaken identities and address changes.  Most of the problems were PPM being used too early in the list of options.

I don't understand why you think it's all fine? The energy supplier admits it was in the wrong. Literally. Hence compensation. Imagine debt collectors just turning up and taking some poor innocent persons stuff because they have a warrant for someone else who used to live there? 

Not compensation.  Goodwill payment.  A CS agent has told you what you want to hear.

Debt collectors regularly send letters to and turn up at houses looking to collect on debts owed by previous occupants.  Often with 'warrants' (although it's a different sort of warrant for bailiffs, as they obviously aren't covered by the 1954 gas & electricity powers of entry act).  They are doing their job, as instructed and according to the law.

Why wouldn't I think it's ok for someone to follow the instructions of a court, or accept that occasional clerical errors occur in an uncommon manual process?

Inbetweeners

Good to see the OP took the 'move on' advice given several pages ago.

matt_drummer

Thinking about this a little further.

You, or anybody else taking on the energy account does not signify that the property is occupied.

Lots of people buy properties and don't move into them immediately. One example would be if I bought a house that I intended to renovate whilst living somewhere else.

Neighbours saying that your house is occupied is of no use either. Otherwise it would be an easy way to ensure that no warrants were ever executed.

The energy company would not know who you are or whether you lived in the property, just that you were now paying the bills.

I really think you would have difficulty proving intent or negligence.

They obtained a warrant legally and from then on it is out of their hands.

They just need to inspect their meters having previously been denied access by the occupier.

They have not tried to recover the previous tenant's debt from you.

Sadly, the timing of events led to a traumatic experience for you.

But I don't think a court would find your energy company or anybody else involved guilty of any wrongdoing

The_Green_Hornet

Inbetweeners said:

Good to see the OP took the 'move on' advice given several pages ago.

Maybe the multiple posters arguing with the OP should also take that advice.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

molerat said:

The warrant clearly states it is to enter the premises, it does not mention the premises rented by, the respondent at the top is pretty much irrelevant.  The entry to the premises was perfectly legal and there is no point going down that route.  Your beef is with the supplier who gained a warrant of entry over a month after they were aware a new tenant had moved in.  Unfortunately with these incompetent energy suppliers the left hand does not talk to the right.  You need to raise a complaint with them and take it to the ombudsman if necessary, they will likely give you £200 to go away.  The newspapers may also like the story, no mentions of illegal though, just incompetent.

Thanks for that. The application was brought by the company that forced entry, presumably on behalf of the energy company. Does that change anything? The energy company are now saying it's all a bit strange and they have finding it difficult to get to the bottom of it.  The person I spoke to last almost suggested the company who forced entry went off on their own bat with this. They offered £100 that phone call.

It does - and treat the 'almost suggestion' from a random CS person as meaning nothing.

Supplier had an unrecovered debt or concern of tampering etc. and could not gain access, told a 3rd party to obtain warrant and proceed with necessary works/inspections.  Now it's off the suppliers list, they have nothing more to do with it.  Change of tenant doesn't necessarily overwrite their concerns or previous debt, so would not be an automatic trigger to change the instructions to the 3rd party.

3rd party goes through the legal process, gets warrant, acts on warrant.  They do not (and many would say should not) have contact with the tenant, occupant, landlord, homeowner etc.  They have no idea if someone has moved out or moved in, and it is essentially irrelevant to them anyway.  Only if their instructions changed would they fail to proceed.

Both parts perfectly legal, supported by the Electricity Act and the Licence Conditions.  Ombudsman might chuck you a few quid, but there are no massive errors here and you haven't suffered a significant loss that needs to be put right, so no precedent for an award over the usual £50 - £150 "shut up and go away" payment.

I'm with the same supplier, who originally told me the error was when they signed me up, someone didn't remove outstanding warrants. However, I now see the warrant was issued on August 9, 5 weeks after I moved in and signed up with the supplier on July 1. They had put a block on electricity supply which they lifted when I moved in - there was no electricity in the house before I signed up. I just find it extraordinary this may be all legal.

Again, in your pursuit of illegality you are misunderstanding the situation.

The date the warrant was issued is irrelevant.  Who happened to be the tenant of the property on the date the warrant was issued is irrelevant.  What two different customer service agents have told you (and I notice that they have told you two completely different and contradictory things, but you are treating both as accurate) is irrelevant.

All that has happened is someone at the supplier hasn't manually revoked the instructions to the 3rd party on the change of customer.  Whether they should or shouldn't, could or couldn't, might need some debate - and that's what your complaint, if you make one, should be about.

Everything here is legal, regardless of how extraordinary you find it.

Yes, they should of course have removed any outstanding warrants etc and they've repeatedly apologised. But they had a few opportunities to rectify it - they took money from the meter to pay the debts of the previous tenant, which I had to call and have rectified. The company that actually forced entry knew it was occupied and that the house was supposed to be empty. Shambolic way to use court warrants to force entry into people's homes. They shouldn't be trusted with warrants in my opinion, they clearly don't care about following due process.

Due process was followed.  Applying for, being granted, and then carrying out a warrant for entry at a named address.

You might want there to be a different process, but that isn't how laws are set.

But they are admitting they were in the wrong? That the warrant should never have been asked for.  They went to court with incorrect information, it shouldn't have happened. Sure, the system someone how allows them to get the warrant when the information supplied is incorrect and old. But that's a flaw. It's not what is supposed to happen.  I'd have let them in if they had asked.

That's completely new information that you have never given us before.

What you have previously said is that the warrant was legitimately asked for and the problem is that it just wasn't cancelled (which might not actually be possible according to some precedents) when they moved out and you moved in.

You are not supposed to be able to just go and get a warrant without due process of informing the person who lives in the property. It should all have been cancelled when I told them I moved in and they signed me up. As I live here and the property is in my name they would need to go through the process with me and name me in any court order, all afresh. They get away with it is all so they don't care - what's £100 to them if the person can be bothered complaining. But it's supposed to work this way.

Who said that they didn't inform the person living in the property at the point when the warrant was applied for?

Speculation here, but it would not be unusual for the application to have been made in July, and something sent to say "you have 8 weeks to respond".  You (according to the dates you put up earlier) wouldn't have seen that letter.

When there was no response, the warrant was issued, hence the date on it (after you took over).  They don't need to write again to say "you didn't answer, so we've issued a warrant".

They would not "need to go through the process with me and name me in any court order, all afresh"

You are confusing "how I would like warrants to work" and "how warrants actually work".

When they signed me up and I told them I had moved it should all have been cancelled. The warrant wasn't issued in the knowledge by the judge that I was living here. The information supplied to court was incorrect. Even if they were in possession of the warrant before I moved in they still shouldn't have executed it knowing I had moved in. Just they get away with it - claim admin error etc. Third party forcing entry helps here.  It's a farce really. It's just not criminal because they get a court order. Shouldn't happen though, hence they say sorry, our fault, admin error, here's £100.

They claim it's a mistake. But you can't go around applying for warrants and executing them knowing the information upon which the warrant was granted is incorrect. Or rather, I should say, shouldn't. Once they know I am living here and it's in my name that all has to go through me and be in my name. 

Imagine if just ringing up the supplier and saying "I'm now the account holder" cancelled all warrants.

What's to stop someone just doing that every 6 weeks and avoiding any access.

I didn't just say I am living here. I have an account with them at this address from July 1. I pay them bills in my name at this address. Even the energy company says they should have cancelled all outstanding warrants etc on the house when they signed me up. I think we've gotten too used to these irregularities - it shouldn't happen and the energy suppliers say it shouldn't happen. Hence they offer compensation, putting it all down to clerical or human error.

Super.  I'll run up a debt to the energy supplier, then get someone else to set up an account with my address and I'll never be able to be disconnected.  Use a rotating cast of randoms to string it out.

A random CS agent sympathising with an angry customer on the phone is not very good evidence of what a company should or shouldn't do - hence the 'compensation', which is nothing of the sort, it's a "take this money, shut up and go away" payment.

As for how often something like this happens?  Very very rarely.  Even when there was a huge investigation into fitting prepayment meters in the last couple of years (which often involves the same warrant process), there were a negligible amount of mistaken identities and address changes.  Most of the problems were PPM being used too early in the list of options.

I don't understand why you think it's all fine? The energy supplier admits it was in the wrong. Literally. Hence compensation. Imagine debt collectors just turning up and taking some poor innocent persons stuff because they have a warrant for someone else who used to live there? 

Not compensation.  Goodwill payment.  A CS agent has told you what you want to hear.

Debt collectors regularly send letters to and turn up at houses looking to collect on debts owed by previous occupants.  Often with 'warrants' (although it's a different sort of warrant for bailiffs, as they obviously aren't covered by the 1954 gas & electricity powers of entry act).  They are doing their job, as instructed and according to the law.

Why wouldn't I think it's ok for someone to follow the instructions of a court, or accept that occasional clerical errors occur in an uncommon manual process?

The instructions they gave the court were incorrect. I live here. They knew this. I was here for over a month paying them bills in my name. The court warrant was issued over a month after I moved in. They admit their failure. The court did not instruct them to break into a property that I live at and that is in my name. It was nothing to do with me. Again, they apologise and admit their "mistake". 

TisInNeedOfHelp24

The_Green_Hornet said:

Inbetweeners said:

Good to see the OP took the 'move on' advice given several pages ago.

Maybe the multiple posters arguing with the OP should also take that advice.

I just think people should be made aware this isn't ok, it''s a"mistake" apparently, but still not ok.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

matt_drummer said:

Thinking about this a little further.

You, or anybody else taking on the energy account does not signify that the property is occupied.

Lots of people buy properties and don't move into them immediately. One example would be if I bought a house that I intended to renovate whilst living somewhere else.

Neighbours saying that your house is occupied is of no use either. Otherwise it would be an easy way to ensure that no warrants were ever executed.

The energy company would not know who you are or whether you lived in the property, just that you were now paying the bills.

I really think you would have difficulty proving intent or negligence.

They obtained a warrant legally and from then on it is out of their hands.

They just need to inspect their meters having previously been denied access by the occupier.

They have not tried to recover the previous tenant's debt from you.

Sadly, the timing of events led to a traumatic experience for you.

But I don't think a court would find your energy company or anybody else involved guilty of any wrongdoing

Negligence was in not removing all outstanding warrants and debts due to previous occupants that have nothing to do with me, a new occupant. They call it a mistake.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

Anyways, that's all folks. 

BarelySentientAI

So, to summarise the thread:

Clerical error meant a valid application for a warrant wasn't revoked before the warrant was issued, which was then legally acted on with minimal damage, and the supplier has offered a goodwill payment for the error.