Invalid Warrant Forced Entry

TisInNeedOfHelp24

MP1995 said:

OK so no actually damages, so they £100 being offered is reasonable.

These things happen in life and instead of stwejng over them sometimes it is best to move on.

Whilst there is sympathy for this happening most of the replies repeat the same thing to you about the legality and it was legal, just a shame it could not be stopped and that has to do with the way the warrant terms are set. It cannot be stopped.

It was also a shame you were not home.

My advice, take some compensation and move on.

Yeah, but It's only not illegal / criminal (it's still trespass)  because the court issued a warrant - on erroneous information. It's a farce and they know it which is why they don't care. Anyways, as has been said no point venting any more. Thanks for your input tho. So yup, turns out you can go to court with erroneous information and semi legally break into someone's home. What a system.

Chris_b2z

LBC Legal Hour is a radio phone-in show on Saturday at 9pm. If you get through, you'll get a brief professional and unbiased opinion from the barrister, Daniel Barnett. It may be that he concludes that the token £100 compensation is the best you can hope for. However, if there are other avenues worth considering then he will explain the risks and costs with each option. You have nothing to lose and it won't cost you anything.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

@Chris_b2z

Thanks for that, but it seems the warrant system they currently use is flawed. They should really verify the information is correct going into court for the warrant, not rely on old previous information, particularly when people move home so often. And the energy company should have a clear failsafe system whereby this doesn't happen. I guess because they know they can get away with it they don't bother.

BarelySentientAI

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.

Reed_Richards

MP1995 said:

OK so no actually damages, so they £100 being offered is reasonable.

Personally I think £100 is rather meagre. The OP had their house broken into for no valid reason; their supplier could and should have stopped it ever happening.  If this were the US, the OP would be suing them for zillions.   

TisInNeedOfHelp24

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.

BarelySentientAI

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.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

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.

Chris_b2z

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

@Chris_b2z

Thanks for that, but it seems the warrant system they currently use is flawed. They should really verify the information is correct going into court for the warrant, not rely on old previous information, particularly when people move home so often. And the energy company should have a clear failsafe system whereby this doesn't happen. I guess because they know they can get away with it they don't bother.

I hope you haven't reached the conclusion that our warrant system is flawed based on a few opinions posted in an anonymous forum. I don't have a legal background but am pretty sure there are safeguards in place to protect your civil liberties. This isn't North Korea.
I would be horrified to find that someone had forced themselves into our secure personal space while the family were out. This is why I don't think your case should be brushed aside and trivialised.

BarelySentientAI

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".