NPower gas 'sculpting'

Sterling

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend opening your claim with a LBA (Letter Before Action).

If you have a claim then it is usual practice to first write a letter setting out your claim and requesting it be met within a time period of your choosing, as suggested by Sterling, but not as part of a LBA.

In the normal course of events, DD, I would agree with what you say. But claimants have been going round this merry-go-round with npower for some considerable time now, and npower appears to have developed a well established pattern of response to all such claims, which includes an outright refusal to admit it is in the wrong.

It is the same response it gave to Ofgem and is unlikely to change. The only way round this (as you have found yourself) is either by threatening or commencing court action; or possibly by using the energy ombudsman. You yourself have previously indicated that the energy ombudsman may not be the ideal route to a solution in such claims.

So, while in a normal claim where a customer is making a claim out of the blue, I would agree that it is clearly only right to send an opening letter that merely sets out details of the claim, and await a response from the business concerned; in this particular matter (and bearing in mind npower’s track record) I fail to see the harm in mentioning court proceedings in the first letter.

I did suggest a time limit of 30 days as opposed to the 14 days mentioned on the link you posted, in order to allow npower a reasonable time to react to the claim. Surely, provided a claimant is acting reasonably, I do not see the problem, and 30 days is a reasonable time limit even for a large company.

Such an approach is not without precedent; for example I gather that in personal injury claims, solicitors usually mention court proceedings in the first letter, and begin legal proceedings soon after, because of the stalling tactics otherwise employed by some insurance companies.

I personally do not feel that npower could in any way say that it has been unfairly prejudiced if court proceedings are mentioned in the opening letter (and a time limit set), especially in the light of that company’s extensive knowledge and handling of such claims thus far. And what we know to have happened thus far thanks to this forum thread.

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

So, while in a normal claim where a customer is making a claim out of the blue, I would agree that it is clearly only right to send an opening letter that merely sets out details of the claim, and await a response from the business concerned; in this particular matter (and bearing in mind npower’s track record) I fail to see the harm in mentioning court proceedings in the first letter.

I agree entirely and in post #1 of the How to Thread under the Stage 3 heading I give an example of how such a letter could be phrased. This example, I believe, is along the lines that you suggest but it is not a LBA. A LBA is a very different letter and would need to be written prior to commencing court proceedings and after previous fruitless attempts to resolve the claim. We are only disagreeing in matters of protocol, not principle.

I too find the ritual dance of 'claim and denial' with npower tedious but I see no short cuts. The fact is no precedents have been set and each claim has to be treated on its own merits and conducted as if it were the very first of this type of claim. Of course the experience of others and the helpful information now contained in this thread is enormously helpful and has cut down the delay and frustration npower seek to cause.

Nonetheless it is still predictably irksome. This is one of the main reasons why npower have so far got away with it. If they just put their hands up upon receiving a claimants first letter then this thread would have died long ago.

By following the path of a 'normal' claim any wriggle room npower may have in a future (but unlikely) court case is reduced.

Sterling

DirectDebacle wrote: »

We are only disagreeing in matters of protocol, not principle.

I can only repeat what I said in the final paragraph of my previous post namely that I personally do not feel that npower could in any way say that it has been unfairly prejudiced if court proceedings are mentioned in an opening letter, provided that there is proof of delivery of that letter, and that a reasonable time limit is given for the complaint to be dealt with before issuing court proceedings.

As far as I am aware (and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong) there is nothing special or magical about a letter before action, and therefore there is no set protocol as to its use (as you seem to be suggesting). It is merely a required warning of impending legal action if the claim is not resolved by a certain date. On the other hand, if such proceedings were to be started without a letter before action, then clearly the defendant could ask for the process to be dismissed. The claimant would then lose the court fees and would have to begin again if necessary.

I rather think we are going to have to disagree on what at worst is merely a technicality, and nothing to do (I’m glad to say) with the claim against npower itself.

DirectDebacle

In the interests of clarity, which letter is it you are suggesting utigers write?

This,

Having finalised a total figure, I would write a “letter before action” setting out your claim in full, and giving npower 30 days from the date of your letter to investigate and settle your claim, adding that failing which you will commence county court proceedings without further notice.

or this,

I can only repeat what I said in the final paragraph of my previous post namely that I personally do not feel that npower could in any way say that it has been unfairly prejudiced if court proceedings are mentioned in an opening letter, provided that there is proof of delivery of that letter, and that a reasonable time limit is given for the complaint to be dealt with before issuing court proceedings.

Sterling

DirectDebacle wrote: »

In the interests of clarity, which letter is it you are suggesting utigers write?

Now, now, DD; you’re just playing a game of confusion here. You know perfectly well that both paragraphs that you have quoted refer to the same letter, being a “letter before action”.

utigers

utigers

Because I have posted a few times it now lets me post pictures.

As you can see it is a big bill lol....

DirectDebacle

utigers wrote: »

Because I have posted a few times it now lets me post pictures.

As you can see it is a big bill lol....

Its huge! By far and away the biggest I have ever seen on this thread lol.

As you have established there were 6495 high rate units charged on your bill. By using the versatile ready reckoner you can work very precisely when and by how much these incorrectly overcharged units occurred. At a quick glance it would be around 20th Dec when 4572 was reached. So 14 days or so were charged at 4.412/1.915 and the remainder at 5.997/1.990. Refer to the daily rates shown in the ready reckoner to work this out. If you have a problem doing it then come back here for assistance.

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

Now, now, DD; you’re just playing a game of confusion here. You know perfectly well that both paragraphs that you have quoted refer to the same letter, being a “letter before action”.

I didn't know that as your posts appeared to me, rather untypically, as ambiguous. If you are absolutely 100% sure that a letter opening a claim with a Letter Before Action contained somewhere in it presents no possibility of npower being able to use that to their advantage further down the line then fair enough. Say so.

I am no legal expert and because of this I am not convinced that weaving a legal document which is usually sent separately, within a general letter setting out a claim is a good idea or a time saver. My advice will remain that the successful path that has been followed so far on this thread, is still followed.

That is, set out and make the claim, negotiate, settle.
If that fails then issue the LBA, negotiate and settle. If that fails take out the summons and then negotiate and settle.

No-one as far as I know has as yet gone to court. I know of very few who have even issued a summons. The LBA in many cases is the catalyst that causes claims to be settled before a summons is applied for. I don't think it should be the opening gambit.

That is purely my own laymans opinion. I claim no expertise and may well be wrong. Just being cautious.

Sterling

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I didn't know that as your posts appeared to me, rather untypically, as ambiguous. If you are absolutely 100% sure that a letter opening a claim with a Letter Before Action contained somewhere in it presents no possibility of npower being able to use that to their advantage further down the line then fair enough. Say so.

I fail to see any ambiguity in my previous posts on this subject, but be that as it may.

Am I 100% sure I am right? Well, it’s what I will be doing with my own opening letter to npower, so I suppose time will tell if I am right.

Fundamentally, there is a choice for people who wish to claim – either a letter setting out their claim (and nothing more) or alternatively a letter setting out a clear and precise claim, giving npower a fair and reasonable time limit to deal with the matter, and advising them of the fact that court action will commence (without further notice) if the matter is not satisfactorily resolved within the said time limit.

As I say, with my own opening letter to npower, I will be doing the latter. How npower could use the latter way against a claimant to its advantage is frankly beyond me, especially with npower’s track record thus far in this matter.