Invalid Warrant Forced Entry

TisInNeedOfHelp24

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.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

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. 

born_again

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.

Given the warrant is no long shown.

What was the date of issue by the court of the warrant?

BarelySentientAI

born_again 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.

Given the warrant is no long shown.

What was the date of issue by the court of the warrant?

9 August.

OP took over the supply on 1 July.

MP1995

Reed_Richards said:

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.   

Thankfully this isn't the US or we would all need liability insurance to leave the house lol

BarelySentientAI

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.

MeteredOut

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. 

I'd wager whoever applied for the warrant did not "know" the information was incorrect. Yes, the supplier (as an organisation) did know you had moved in, but I suspect the typical failure of communications at large companies, meant it was not passed on. The fact the previous occupant's name was on the warrant backs up that theory.

I'd also suggest the neighbour telling the warrant offices that a new person had recently moved in does not mean they were still not expect to, and probably entitled to, execute the warrant.

A massive mistake by the supplier, which is why you should be chasing them.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

MeteredOut 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. 

I'd wager whoever applied for the warrant did not "know" the information was incorrect. Yes, the supplier (as an organisation) did know you had moved in, but I suspect the typical failure of communications at large companies, meant it was not passed on. The fact the previous occupant's name was on the warrant backs up that theory.

I'd also suggest the neighbour telling the warrant offices that a new person had recently moved in does not mean they were still not expect to, and probably entitled to, execute the warrant.

A massive mistake by the supplier, which is why you should be chasing them.

For sure, it is the suppliers fault. I was just pointing out they get away with it and know they can get away with it. How many mistakes of this nature happen daily I wonder. They just don't care. The company that forced entry just say it's all the fault of the energy supplier so they couldn't care a less who is living there etc.  Bailiffs couldn't act in this manner.

TisInNeedOfHelp24

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.

bagand96

TisInNeedOfHelp24 said:

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.

But it was a clerical and/or human error.