NPower gas 'sculpting'

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

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.

It may be beyond you but not everyone has your depth of knowledge.

The ambiguity I saw was that your first post on this matter was clear that the opening letter should be written as a letter before action. Your subsequent posts refer to ‘mentioning court proceedings,’ which is not a letter before action. You then state that it is common for solicitors in personal injury cases to mention court action. You do not say that this is deemed to be a letter before action or if they follow up these ‘mentions’ with one.

I see a distinct difference. A letter before action is a legal document that is required to be served upon the other party before legal proceedings are commenced. It is a formal statement of intent. Mentioning court proceedings is often made in opening letters of a claim but it is not a letter before action.

My concern was that a casual reader may form the opinion from your posts that all they needed to do was mention court proceedings in the opening letter of their claim and be under the impression that they had sent a letter before action. Not everyone will be as knowledgeable as you in this dispute with npower or in county court proceedings. Not everyone who reads this thread and follows the advice given in it and then makes a claim, makes it known to us. It was out of concern for others that I questioned your advice and asked for clarity.

It is possible that someone may take parts of an example letter in the how to thread and write an opening letter mentioning court proceedings along the lines of ..…if you do not satisfactorily settle my claim within 14 days (or whatever) I will initiate recovery proceedings which may/might/could/ will include court action’. Fifteen days later they are applying for a summons thinking they have sent a letter before action. They haven’t.
It is this possibility which I wish to minimise. Npower would certainly take advantage of such a situation. They could let the matter go before the court and make an application that the judge dismisses the case on the grounds that they had never received a letter before action and that the summons should not have been granted.

I can give you an example of their ability to seize any opportunity, however slight, to dispute claims. It happened in my claim. After the summons had been issued I discovered that npower had not provided me with all the information I requested from them prior to my application for the summons.

This undisclosed information made a significant difference to my claim and I applied to the court for an amendment which greatly increased it. As part of this process npower were served by the court copies of my application and the supporting statement of evidence. They had the opportunity, after having examined the amendment and the evidence, to contest it. They chose not to. The application was granted unopposed and they were served with the amendment.

Several weeks passed by and negotiations with npower continued. I received a letter from their solicitors informing me that at the court hearing they were going to apply for my amendment be struck out. Their grounds were that I had not served them with the papers. I had assumed that because the court had served them with copies of the amendment papers and the supporting evidence that it was not necessary for me to serve them with an identical but separate set. As my case never reached court I don’t know whether this application by npower would have been successful or not. The lesson is not to assume anything.
It for these reasons that deviating from set procedures or accepted practice should be avoided.

It is usual for a letter before action to be sent as a separate document prior to court proceeding being started and after all other efforts to resolve the matter have failed. This is normal practice. There are usually very good reasons why something becomes normal practice.

Sterling you are as knowledgeable as anyone who posts on this thread and readers no doubt have evrey confidence in your ability to give sound advice, which is often. Of course you are well able to conduct your claim in whatever way you see best. I wish you every success with it and your time saving experiment. I only ask that if you advise others to follow your example that they make it abundantly clear to npower that the letter setting out the claim does include a letter before action. Perhaps the opening letter should contain two separate letters. One setting out the claim and the other a letter before action, clearly marked as such.

My advice, if sought, will remain that the usual procedure should be followed.

A less risky and perhaps more productive time saver may be to write directly to Paul Williamson. We know from previous claims that npowers complaints section do not deal with them and they are referred to Williamson and finally the legal dept. Bypassing npower complaints and going directly to Williamson, with whom the claim will end up with anyway, could save a month or more of time wasted as the claim bounces around the offices at npower. If Williamson refuses to accept the claim directly then no harm has been done. The result of this experiment would be known much more quickly than waiting for any objection npower may or may not raise to a combined claim/letter before action.

Sterling

DD, I am happy to clear up any ambiguity, that you may perceive, as follows. You may take it that within the terms of the posts which have been exchanged between us on the subject of “letters before action”, when I refer to letters that “mention court action” I am referring to LBA’s. I hope that resolves the matter for you.

You have made a number of interesting points, but I really don’t think I can usefully add to what I have said already.

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

You have made a number of interesting points, but I really don’t think I can usefully add to what I have said already.

To the followers of this thread that have not yet lost the will to live, you will be relieved to see that, I too, have nothing else to add.

DirectDebacle

Just a post trying to get to a normal sized page

DirectDebacle

Can't be far off now. Great now I can turn chameleon vision off.

utigers

Blame Npower mate, not me.

KimYeovil

Still seems readable at this size:

DirectDebacle

KimYeovil wrote: »

Still seems readable at this size:

Kim is brilliant. He has instantly reduced the size of utigers bill but it still comes to the same amount. A real improvement on the 'tariff year' trick. Flog that to npower Kim and you will live in the lap of luxury forever more.:D

DirectDebacle

Below is the first update I have received from Ofgem without first having to send them a chasing email.

The complaint of 30th June refers to the way they investigated npower.

The complaint of 18th July is a complaint re their failiure to deal correctly with the first complaint. I couldn't be bothered complaining about their failiure to deal with the second complaint correctly.

The information requested is some that should have been supplied with my FOI/SAR enquiries and some is regarding matters arising from what they did send.

'A day or two', 'soon' and 'shortly' are code words for several weeks.

'Senior management are considering', is a new one on me. I don't know if it is a code or it just means what it says. Bit of a tricky one that. We shall see.

I thought it would be useful to update you on the various strands of correspondence that are currently with us.

These are your enquiry by email of 12 June, your letter of complaint of 30 June letter, your further letter of complaint of 18 July and your email enquiry of 23 July. These are all being worked on.

I understand that searches are underway for information requested in both enquiries. I am also aware that senior management are considering your complaints. The nature of these means that they are taking longer to deal with than would normally be the case. I am informed however that a response should be with you shortly.

Sterling

Looks like a step in the right direction from Ofgem for a change (after a push from other quarters). Here is the link to the story.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6788000.ece