NPower gas 'sculpting'

Sterling

DD

You have raised a number of issues in your most recent post, and I will try and deal with them fully. The sections in blue are taken from your post.

gjh asked two straightforward questions which I answered as honestly and helpfully as I could. Entirely consistent with my previous posts on this thread.


For the record those two questions were

1) “Can anyone tell me if n-power has actually paid out?”

2) “Should I now refer to Energywatch?”

You chose not to answer his questions. Instead you have embarked upon some sort of Alice in Wonderland journey into my previous posts, in an attempt to support your illogical and irrelevant inconsistency theory.

Oh really? I rather think I answered both questions very clearly. As for my references to your previous posts, I was attempting to demonstrate the remarkable difference between what you were saying then as compared with the advice you have given to gjh. In fact your reply to gjh never even mentioned that Npower had paid out to savvy customers who would not take “no” for an answer. Yet surely this is precisely what gjh asked in his first question.

I feel that the selective and restricted advice you gave to gjh in effect risked denying this person a chance of having compensation at the levels enjoyed by you, Mick Steel, myself and many others. You didn’t even ask gjh for any details of his dialogue with Npower thus far.

When you were preparing your claim, did you really neglect to check with Consumer Direct and the Energy Ombudsman that they were unable to deal with claims of this nature?

It was you yourself who much earlier in this thread established that the Energy Ombudsman had no wish to get involved, thus enabling you to take your matter to court. I simply relied on that fact. I could see no point in my going on the same merry-go-round merely to establish what you had already discovered.

In any event, perhaps I can quote from the County Court website as follows as regards ombudsmen services etc.

“Court rules require you to think about whether alternative dispute resolution is a better way to reach an agreement before going to court”.

Well, I did “think” about using the Energy Ombudsman service “before going to court”, and for a number of legitimate reasons, many of which have already been mentioned on this thread, I felt that the right and proper course of action in this particular matter was to issue county court proceedings against Npower unless that company settled my claim in full.

You seem to be saying that unless a claimant contacts the Energy Ombudsman beforehand, and unless the Energy Ombudsman is unwilling to get involved, the County Court will refuse to take the case. If that is not what you are saying, what are you saying?

If you didn't make these checks then you were fortunate npower chose not to contest it. Before touting your claim as a good example for others to follow, these shortcomings in case preparation, if they exist, need to be addressed.

I can only repeat my previous answer, and I await an answer to my above question.

You are wrong to assume npower will never contest one of these claims just because they haven't so far. Unlikely as it is, the possibility still needs to be covered.

Actually, I don’t think I am wrong. I think Npower knows full well that it has no adequate defence in this matter. After all, isn’t that why it keeps paying out so-called goodwill payments? Doesn’t that answer gjh’s first question?

A County Court judge could refuse to hear the case on the grounds that sufficient prior effort to resolve the dispute had not been made.

Well, in my own case, Npower’s solicitor made this very point. In fact he said as follows

“You will appreciate that it is the Court’s view that parties to disputes should attempt to resolve disputes by all reasonable means including of course through negotiation…The onus is therefore on both parties to proceedings to have made every attempt to resolve the dispute prior to the issue of such proceedings.”

I replied by saying

“It seems to me that the first step in attempting a resolution is to see if we can find any common ground as to the question of whether or not npower is indeed liable. As you know, I wrote a very detailed letter dated 30th July, and another dated 12th August setting out the details of my claim (as amended by this letter), and why I believe that npower is fully liable. You have replied making a number of points, and it is only right that I should deal with them in this letter. In so doing, it will prove necessary for me to ask you a number of questions; and for your convenience and ease of reply, I propose to number those questions as they arise through this letter.”

I then raised around 40 rather searching questions, and I received payment in full from Npower without further argument.

Hopefully we can now return to the main business of the thread which is to give assistance to those that seek it by giving the best advice that we can.

That brings us full circle. I merely queried why your advice to gjh was at such variance with your other posts. I don’t think I am any the wiser now having read your rather objectionable and aggressive post.

Sterling

DD

As a supplement to my previous post, perhaps I could ask you to clarify the following quote.

Quote:
I anticipate that C.D. will refer you to the Energy Ombudsman. If the Energy Ombudsman has changed their policy and will now consider these claims then I would recommend that you allow them to deal with it. If their decision or action is not to your liking then you do not have to accept it. The route to court is still open to you.


I was under the impression that if a person goes to arbitration (including an ombudsman), in preference to going to court then that person will be contractually bound to accept the verdict of the arbiter; and cannot then take his case to court.

However, your wording in bold appears to be saying the opposite. Can you please clarify?

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

DD

As a supplement to my previous post, perhaps I could ask you to clarify the following quote.

Quote:
I anticipate that C.D. will refer you to the Energy Ombudsman. If the Energy Ombudsman has changed their policy and will now consider these claims then I would recommend that you allow them to deal with it. If their decision or action is not to your liking then you do not have to accept it. The route to court is still open to you.


I was under the impression that if a person goes to arbitration (including an ombudsman), in preference to going to court then that person will be contractually bound to accept the verdict of the arbiter; and cannot then take his case to court.

However, your wording in bold appears to be saying the opposite. Can you please clarify?

I was wondering why you hadn't mentioned this in your last post and was going to raise it in my response.
Your latest enquiry illustrates quite nicely one of the main points in that response. Namely your lazy, slack and sloppy approach to research and case preparation.

The clarification you require can be found here:

http://www.energy-ombudsman.org.uk/links/5-36-rejecting_the_final_decision.php

I have thoughtfully put the link to the actual page in case you had trouble finding it from the home page.

Wraps it up quite nicely. Don't think, find out.

See if you can find what the guidelines for costs are regarding L.I.P. (litigants in person) and then compare them to the costs you added to your claim. You might be surprised.

Sterling

DD

Thank you for the link you supplied, which indeed clarifies the position. However, I am not sure what point you are making as to “costs”. Can you please explain? Please don’t just provide me with a link.

In addition, I notice that you failed to reply to my question in my post #1387. For your convenience here it is again.

You seem to be saying that unless a claimant contacts the Energy Ombudsman beforehand, and unless the Energy Ombudsman is unwilling to get involved, the County Court will refuse to take the case. If that is not what you are saying, what are you saying?

DirectDebacle

You seem to be saying that unless a claimant contacts the Energy Ombudsman beforehand, and unless the Energy Ombudsman is unwilling to get involved, the County Court will refuse to take the case. If that is not what you are saying, what are you saying

I am saying that correct procedures and best practice should be followed. If they are not then problems may arise. The court may just refuse to issue the summons and refer the parties back to the Ombudsman. Who knows? I cannot accurately predict what action a court would take under such circumstances and neither can you. Far better to avoid the possibility ever arising and so simple to do. Better to be safe than sorry.

The guidance you refer to on the HMC site is precisely that, guidance. I would not take the phrase 'think about' as literally as you. To me that requires to be construed in much broader terms. I take it to mean that you go through these alternatives and exhaust them before embarking upon litigation. There is a good chance that when a judge examined an application for a summons and the respondents response to it, which showed that there were alternative means of resolution that had not been fully explored, then the granting of the application would not be considered until these alternative means had been exhausted.

The Ombudsman service was set up for several reasons, one being to relieve the courts from additional work and expense. It is likely that if the court see an opportunity to offload some work to another organisation, then they will do so.

For those reasons that is why I advise that the current situation with the Ombudsman be verified. A quick and easy check made at the outset could avoid further delay down the line.

That is my opinion and my approach. It is not presented as fact but as a probability. It matters not to me whether you agree with it or not. I shall continue to advise that this action be taken by claimants. You can put your view and the claimant can decide which one to adopt. I do not expect you to jump down my throat and make wild claims that I am attempting to deny others the size of claim we have enjoyed, simply by advising them to follow recommended procedures.

What decision on being asked to issue a summons do you think a court might reach. They are presented with a copy of an email from the Ombudsman stating that they would deal with the complaint, together with a request from the respondent asking that the matter be dealt with, in the first instance, by the Ombudsman. They also have a letter from the complainant stating they had thought about the Ombudsman service but had no desire to use them as the court would probably give a more generous pay-out?

Thank you for the link you supplied, which indeed clarifies the position. However, I am not sure what point you are making as to “costs”. Can you please explain? Please don’t just provide me with a link.

I meant the costs element of your claim i.e. the rate per hour and amount of hours spent preparing your claim.

Sterling

DD

So now we have it. After everything you have said previously to the effect that a claimant must approach the energy Ombudsman before threatening court action, it all turns out to have been no more than your opinion as to what a claimant should do. What a climb down.

You even had the cheek to say to me

When you were preparing your claim, did you really neglect to check with Consumer Direct and the Energy Ombudsman that they were unable to deal with claims of this nature?

Well, now we know I was right not to bother despite what you had said earlier on the thread. It also means the emphatic advice you gave to gjh was incomplete, since you failed to explain the possibility of threatening legal action directly, and taking it if necessary.

You then said

If you didn't make these checks then you were fortunate npower chose not to contest it. Before touting your claim as a good example for others to follow, these shortcomings in case preparation, if they exist, need to be addressed.

Well, it rather looks as though my approach is perfectly correct after all. Believe me, if Npower had shared your opinion as contained in the previous paragraph, I have no doubt I would have heard about it. I was not merely “fortunate” as you suggest.

In your previous post, you even went so far as to use the following words to me

…your lazy, slack and sloppy approach to research and case preparation.

Having regard to your climb down as shown above, I really wonder if these words (rude as they are) have any relevance at all. What I can say is - as regards your own claim against Npower - your correspondence clearly was not strong enough to discourage Npower from letting you commence court proceedings, and indeed to take your matter all the way to the steps of court, whereas I recovered my full claim of over £1,350 in only 57 days and just three letters. I really don’t think I need take any lessons from you in case management or case preparation.

Finally, when you say

I meant the costs element of your claim i.e. the rate per hour and amount of hours spent preparing your claim.

I am unable to reply to the point you are making, simply because I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you would care to state your point fully, I shall be pleased to address it; but I really don’t have the time or inclination to play guessing games.

Cardew

Sterling wrote: »

Having regard to your climb down as shown above, I really wonder if these words (rude as they are) have any relevance at all. What I can say is - as regards your own claim against Npower - your correspondence clearly was not strong enough to discourage Npower from letting you commence court proceedings, and indeed to take your matter all the way to the steps of court, whereas I recovered my full claim of over £1,350 in only 57 days and just three letters. I really don’t think I need take any lessons from you in case management or case preparation.

It seems a pity that the most useful thread on MSE is developing into a squabble and us ‘regulars’ have been loath to interfere for fear of upsetting either(or both!) of the two posters who have contributed so much to this thread.

Direct Debacle has been the trailblazer on this issue for the past 19 months. He took on npower and ofgem as well as ensuring The Times and politicians have become involved.

I suspect DD’s high profile, and that he actually instigated court proceedings, have been the major reason why npower have caved in to subsequent claims – including yours- he established a quasi legal precedent.

You have also carried out a huge amount of detailed work in this thread, but it is my fear that npower will be the only winner if your ‘debate’ with DD continues to be aired in this thread.

Sterling

Cardew

This “squabble” that you refer to could and should have been a dignified discussion. I would remind you that throughout the recent posts that have been exchanged it is DirectDebacle who has adopted a bombastic approach, using, as he has, a range of offensive and insulting words, phrases and expressions.

His intolerance to my disagreement with his advice to gjh and the MSE equivalent of road rage in his posts have done him no credit at all. I would even venture to say he owes me an apology several times over. I don’t care how much work he has put into this matter, there was no cause for such rudeness and abuse.

While I’m sure your intervention is well intended, I would suggest you would do well to let DirectDebacle fight his own battles. I await a reply from him to my previous post.

Cardew

Sterling wrote: »

I would suggest you would do well to let DirectDebacle fight his own battles.

I was hoping that the "battles" would be a joint effort against npower and ofgem;)

DirectDebacle

....but it is my fear that npower will be the only winner if your ‘debate’ with DD continues to be aired in this thread.

Cardew.

The same thought crossed my mind. However future claimants should benefit from having had the finer points of the procedural side of a claim examined and in a small way make for stronger foundations for claims to be to be built upon. That will not be to the benefit of npower.


Sterling.

As far as I am concerned our 'debate' is whether or not the Ombudsman should be contacted before a claim is made. You avoided answering any of the points I made in my last post by lamely attempting to write the whole post off as pure opinion. Of course, as you well know, it wasn't.

You have stated that all any claimant needs to do as far as the Ombudsman service goes, is to merely think about it. You quote the HMCS site as your source for this advice. Here is the full text of what they say.

If someone owes you money and you cannot settle things in any other way, you may decide to issue a claim through the county court. People also issue claims for other reasons, including:

• bad workmanship;
• damage to their property;
• road traffic accidents;
• personal injury;
• goods not supplied; and
• faulty goods

County courts deal with all these types of claim. You will sometimes hear people talk about the 'small claims court'. What they really mean is the special procedure for handling smaller claims in a county court.
Going to court should always be the last resort. There are now a number of other ways of sorting out complaints, disputes and legal problems without court action, including arbitration, mediation and ombudsmen schemes These are often called alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes.
Court rules require you to think about whether alternative dispute resolution is a better way to reach an agreement before going to court.

I take that first sentence to mean exactly what it says. You must try to settle a claim in another ( unless you have a good reason to refuse ADR) way unless court is the only option.

Great emphasis is then put upon the alternate options to court. Below this are links to information leaflets. By reading leaflet EX301

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm

even greater emphasis is placed upon an ADR. It lists 3 things you might gain from going to court and 9 things you might get from using an ADR. It also contains a warning as to the consequences if you do not use an ADR. There is then another link to follow for further reading. This takes you to the Community Legal Advice site, another govt. run dept.

http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/en/legalhelp/leaflet23_2.jsp

They list similar advantages of using an ADR and finish their advice with this warning.

Court rules also now say that you must think about whether some form of ADR would be a better way to reach an agreement before you go to court. If you refuse without good reason to try ADR before going to court, you may not get your court costs back, even if you win your case.

Now I am not sure what they mean by 'you may not get your court costs back'. It could mean just the fees or it may mean the fees plus any expenses incurred in making the claim. If the latter then that could be disatrous for a claim based on along the lines of yours, which was almost entirely made up with costs. Note this sanction applies even if you win your case.

So you can see why I advise claimants to contact the Ombudsman and, if their service is available, to use it. You have learnt today that their decision is not binding and court is still an option.

I would have done this with my own claim had the Ombudsman service been available.

My opinion on the Ombudsman service as not a particularly good one still stands.

Consumer Direct advises using the Ombudsman, so do the courts and probably any other consumer organisation worth its salt.

Commonsense dictates that we should be offering the same advice.