NPower gas 'sculpting'

Sterling

Cardew

I see that you have failed (in both of your posts) to address DirectDebacle’s inexcusably bombastic approach, using, as he has, a range of offensive and insulting words, phrases and expressions in his recent posts to me.

I consider your intervention to be biased in DD’s favour especially as your quote skilfully missed off the downright insulting words from DirectDebacle immediately above it, namely

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

But for the fact of your long-standing friendship with DD, I feel sure you would have had the good grace to have conceded his poor conduct in at least one of your two posts on here today. Can you honestly condone this sort of rudeness?

This “squabble” as you chose to call it could and should have been a dignified discussion; and I would remind you that throughout his recent posts, it is DirectDebacle that has allowed his standards to drop to an unacceptably low level, not me.

Upwind

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I have to concur with Cardew's sentiments above guys.

I know that you have both contributed greatly to the ‘cause’
and that you were a tower of strength to me when I needed your inputs for my own claim. It is easy to get bogged down in the 'technicalities' of how to proceed with a case and I know that you both have valid points of view. When submitting my own case, you both gave me valuable advice and I was able to 'cherry-pick' the route that I felt most comfortable with from the advice that you gave. This dual input gave me the benefit of two wise heads and a wider perspective of what I was getting in to and what to expect along the way! Might I suggest a truce in the 'War of Procedures' and a return to the harmony and singular goal that I know you both seek.

You already know that I have a high regard for both of you gents and would hate to see any ‘advantage’ passed to the real enemy in this fiasco.

Sterling

Mick

While I agree with much of what you say and I greatly appreciate you saying it. I notice that you also have made no comment regarding the very aggressive and abusive words and phrases that DirectDebacle has used in his recent posts to me. Do you consider that sort of thing acceptable?

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

Cardew

I see that you have failed (in both of your posts) to address DirectDebacle’s inexcusably bombastic approach, using, as he has, a range of offensive and insulting words, phrases and expressions in his recent posts to me.

I consider your intervention to be biased in DD’s favour especially as your quote skilfully missed off the downright insulting words from DirectDebacle immediately above it, namely

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

But for the fact of your long-standing friendship with DD, I feel sure you would have had the good grace to have conceded his poor conduct in at least one of your two posts on here today. Can you honestly condone this sort of rudeness?

This “squabble” as you chose to call it could and should have been a dignified discussion; and I would remind you that throughout his recent posts, it is DirectDebacle that has allowed his standards to drop to an unacceptably low level, not me.

Enough Sterling. Cardew was only trying to pour oil on troubled waters. There is no need for you to attempt to embroil him in our dispute. He would not allow himself to be drawn in any event.

Before complaining about my posts you should look carefully at the tone of yours. Insinuating that I was deliberately attempting to reduce the size of gjh's claim by advising him/her to contact the Energy Ombudsman service was tantamount to libel.

Your basis for this allegation?

We discover that it was your own ignorance of how the Obmbudman service actually works.

Lazy, slack and sloppy. I agree not complimentary but very apt.

Lazy?

Example. Today you asked me for clarification that the Ombudsmans decision was not binding. You couldn't be bothered to seek out such a readily available piece of in formation as that.

Slack and sloppy?

Example.

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.

You couldn't be bothered to check that old information was still current. Further you unquestionably accepted that information gleaned from an internet 'chat room' was genuine.

Lucky for you that my posts are indeed honest and based upon the best information that I can get.

If you find the above too upsetting for you then press the abuse button.

Upwind

Hi Sterling

TBH, I only skimmed over what was said and did not read it all. I am sure that DD did not mean to offend and maybe he stepped over the mark with his comments. I cannot speak for DD, but I am sure that on reflection he may retract these and reaffirm his intent to take to task the real enemies in this argument.

I hold both of you gents in very high regard and would hate to give the likes of a certain Mr Chapman (I know you remember him…..!!) and the rest of the npower consortium the pleasure of seeing you fall out over a few misplaced words. I think you are both better than that.

Sterling

DD

On the one hand, I have Cardew and Mick Steel pleading with us to settle our differences, and on the other hand, I have the piffle of your last two posts and more defamatory remarks from you. I cannot understand why you have to resort to such anger, rudeness and personal insults against me to get your point across when you are obviously an intelligent person.

You simply have to accept that other people may have different opinions to yours, and using aggression, rudeness and personal insults against me won’t change that.

It has been shown on this thread that people can get results in different ways and depending upon the individual, they have various choices including my way and your way, and combining ways from each of us, all of which have been successful. It isn’t set in stone which way is better in how to get your money back from npower, each way has worked and has hurt npower in having to pay out. Surely, that is the main point of this thread, to help as many people as possible to get their money back from npower by whatever method they prefer.

I will continue to make my opinions known on this thread and I will continue with my work behind the scenes including my application to the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding Ofgem’s sham of an investigation.

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

. I await a reply from him to my previous post.

My reply is on page 70 post #1396.

All we need to know is whether you agree with this:

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.

DirectDebacle

Sterling wrote: »

DD

On the one hand, I have Cardew and Mick Steel pleading with us to settle our differences, and on the other hand, I have the piffle of your last two posts and more defamatory remarks from you.

My post # 1391 you gloatingly dismissed as a 'climb down' in your post #1392. You then copy and pasted extracts from some of my other posts in an attempt to justify that remark. This was purely to try to distract readers from the fact that you had no valid argument against the points I made 'in the said' post #1391.

In that same post of yours you then made disparaging remarks as regards my claim and held yours up as a far superior example.

Let me remind you that my claim was not just based on my work but on all the good work many other contributors had put into unravelling npowers actions. Most have moved on. I cannot recall them all but colonehall, meggsy, Cardew, RM5, notbritishgas and terryw are a few that spring to mind. All of us were struggling to get to grips with what npower had done.

Bit by bit and piece by piece we worked it out and reached a point where I felt I had sufficient information to pursue a claim to a court hearing if necessary. The rest is history.

The thread has come on leaps and bounds since those early days to a point where we can discuss the finer points of case preparation as opposed to 'what is a tariff year'.

So when you rubbish the quality of my claim which was based upon hours of hard work not just by me but many others, you also rubbish them.

Before you start whining about being the recipient of defamatory remarks you should look more carefully at your own posts. At least you are here to defend yourself. Most of those you have insulted are not.

I think you owe the thread an apology for those remarks.

Do you really think your 57 day claim, which you keep reminding everybody of, would have been that easy without the hard work put in by others. Their work built up the knowledge base that you readily took advantage of?

I acknowledge that we have differences in approaches to claims. You base yours on a small overcharge together with a large claim for costs attached to it. Your type of claim could be particularly vulnerable to the sanctions indicated by HMCS. Mine is based on a breach of contract. Either way it involves the threat of court action and the willingness to carry out that threat if need be.

There should therefore be no difference in the way claims are prepared for court in respect of the steps required to be taken prior to applying for a summons.

That is the root of our disagreement and you are now shirking away from discussing it.

My opinion is based upon research and the information that research revealed. I have sought to validate my opinion by providing the links to the sources I used and even copied and pasted a whole piece of text from one. I didn't just cherry pick a single sentence from it in order to score points, as you did.

I am not infallible and I do make mistakes. When I do I try to learn from them.

If you would be kind enough to supply the sources which gave you the impression that the Ombudsman decision is binding and also the source that tells you that by initiating court action without using the Ombudsman service, if available, cannot lead to the consequences as outlined by HMCS, then I would be grateful. Once I have seen them I may be minded to revise my opinion.

I recognise that npower contesting a court case is unlikely. It is still a possibility and as I have repeatedly stated, claims should be prepared on that basis.

P.S. Please point out the 'piffle' in post #1396

DirectDebacle

Sterling,

I can imagine that you are now in some difficulty in sustaining your argument. In order to settle the matter and to allow the thread to return to normality I would like you to consider this proposal.

If in the future if we are lucky enough for another potential claimant to come our way, would you agree to this.

That as part and parcel of making a claim you recommend that the claimant check with the Ombudsman that they are still not willing to deal with this type of claim.

If they are not, then no problem, the check has been made.

If they have changed their policy and will deal with it, then you recommend that the claimant pursue the claim through the Ombudsman scheme. You can advise the claimant what to do if they do not like the Ombudsmans decision.

DirectDebacle

I have spent some time thinking about these recent exchanges between Sterling and I and their implications.

His post #1402 I find disconcerting. It appears to me to be a refusal to accept not just my opinion but also the advice of the court service and other professional consumer advice services. He describes it as ‘piffle’.

His promise to continue to give his unchanged opinion, is something my conscience tells me I cannot be a party to. To say it doesn't matter because he won his claim, I do not find reassuring.

This is a money saving site. I believe his opinion, if the conditions were set slightly differently, could lead to a claimant being worse off after making a claim than they were before.

To a lesser degree, he may have or already has, damaged the reputation of not only the thread but the MSE site itself. Because people with problems seeking advice often visit several sites, they only need to be told by a couple of them that the MSE advice was wrong and it is shown to be wrong, the damage is done. Word soon gets round.

Sterling gave an open invitation to be P.M.’d by claimants in order that he could personally advise them. He may have already wrongly advised several claimants which the thread would have no knowledge of.

I have no evidence either of the above happened, it is a risk I find unacceptable.

If this has occured and I sincerely hope it hasn't, it will be because of Sterlings' undoubted sincere and honest desire to help as many claimants he can, in the best way he can. His commitment and dedication to that goal has never been in doubt.

However I will take any measures I see fit to preserve my own integrity.

For the above reasons it is with a heavy heart that I now disassociate myself from this thread. I will miss it.

Without this thread I doubt my claim would have been as successful as it was and I give my warmest thanks to all those that have supported me and to those that contributed so richly and unselfishly to the thread.

I will continue to post npower related matters on MSE but not here.

Thank you all and goodbye.