NPower gas 'sculpting'

BallandChain

DirectDebacle wrote: »

My case papers are still available for download for anyone to refer to as a guide http://savefile.com/projects/808698866
All cases will not be the same so doing pro-forma type letters/forms would not be easy and I am not prepared to spend my time doing it.

I've tried a few times now and I just can't access that link. It says loading and page is blank.

Reactor wrote:

You are like a 'ball on chain' on my leg whenever I make any criticism of these gas companies here, so I think it is reasonable I think you have a vested interest in the gas companies otherwise why else would you be doing it?

Hey, no offence taken, lol!

DirectDebacle

BallandChain wrote: »

I've tried a few times now and I just can't access that link. It says loading and page is blank.

It takes me straight to the download page. There have been almost 250 downloads so far so it would seem it works for some and not others. Maybe a firewall or security is preventing it. I am not techie so guessing really.

meggsy

I thought I would try the link and it doesn't download for me but after a couple of tries this appears on the page ....

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your download should begin shortly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If it does not, try Download file now [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The file downloaded ok. Hope this helps [/FONT]

reactor_3

meggsy wrote: »

I thought I would try the link and it doesn't download for me but after a couple of tries this appears on the page ....

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your download should begin shortly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If it does not, try Download file now [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The file downloaded ok. Hope this helps [/FONT]

I really don't know why people don't just post such information as plain text in a thread, it's easier all round.Who wants to have to open a new window just to read a document? Whats wrong with just posting it direct?
It saves everyone a pile of trouble.
Anyway here is the stuff.



DEFENCE
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 5 to 15 below, it is denied that the Defendant is in breach of its contract to the Claimant.
GAS CHARGES AND MONTHLY CHARGING
5 Gas supplied by the Defendant is charged at two rates. The first or "Primary Block" rate is the more expensive and is charged per annum on the first 4,572 kWh ("units") of gas consumed by means of an allocation of a specific quantity of Primary Block units in each month according to the method of allocation of those units, or billing "Cycle" applied by the Defendant. Consumption over that quantity is charged at a lower rate (the "Follow-On" rate). It is possible for a Cycle to be interrupted and for a new Cycle to begin (as explained in paragraph 8 below).
Note: Paras 2-5 deleted as contain personal details.

There are two approaches to this month by month Cycle. The first is to create a shaped approach to charging so that a differing quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This reflects higher customer usage of gas during the winter months and conversely, lowers usage in the summer months and allows the supplier to recover a greater proportion of fixed costs during the periods of greater supply volume. This is known as "Seasonally Weighted" charging.
The second is to create a flat approach to charging so that the same quantity of units each month is charged at the Primary Block rate. This is known as "Flat" charging.
If any change occurs between the two methods of charging, it is necessary for a new Cycle to start. This is because each Cycle involves charging a different quantity (or allocation) of Primary Block units in any month and the Defendant's billing system then has to be re-set to bill the correct amount of Primary Block units per month across all of its customers. A new Cycle therefore starts on the date of such change.

PERIOD OF CLAIM
From 01/04/2003 to 30/09/2004 (18 months) the Cycle under which the Claimant received a supply of gas had a Flat charging structure. At the charging rate of 4,572 units per annum, the maximum quantity of units that the Defendant was entitled to charge for this period of 18 months at the Primary Block rate was 6,858 (being 18/12 months x 4572). The Defendant actually charged the Claimant for only 6,855 units at the Primary Block rate. This is shown in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.
Throughout this period, the Claimant would have received bills setting out his consumption and the relevant Cycle, i.e. the quantity of units charged at the relevant Primary Block and Follow-On rates during the period covered by the bill. The Claimant was also free at any time to terminate his contract with the Defendant.
From 01/10/2004 to 30/09/2006 (24 months) a new Cycle commenced because the Claimant received a supply of gas with a Seasonally Weighted charging structure instead of a Flat charging structure. The maximum quantity of units that the Defendant was entitled to charge for this period of 24 months at the Primary Block rate was 9,144 (being 24/12
months x 4572). The Defendant actually charged the Claimant for only 9,143 units at the Primary Block rate. Again, this is shown in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. Paragraph 10 is repeated.
From 01/10/2006 to 30/04/2007 (7 months) the Claimant continued to receive his gas supply under a Seasonally Weighted charging structure. The maximum quantity of units that the Defendant was entitled to charge for this period of 7 months at the Primary Block rate was 3,721. The Defendant actually charged the Claimant for 3,633 units at the Primary Block rate. Paragraph 10 is repeated.
With effect from 01/05/2007 a new Cycle began as the charging structure was changed from Seasonally Weighted to Flat. This Cycle continued until 01/11/2007 (a period of 6 months) when a new Cycle commenced (see paragraph 20 below). The Claimant was not notified of this change (for the reasons stated below at paragraph 19). The Claimant would have anticipated being charged at the Primary Block rate during this 6 month Cycle in accordance with the Seasonally Weighted charging structure prevailing before the new Cycle began on 01/05/2007 i.e.1,182 units. During this 6 month Cycle however, the actual quantity of units charged to the Claimant at the Primary Block rate was 2,293, a difference of 1,111. These 1,111 units were charged at the Primary Block rate of 4.412p per unit applying at that time, resulting in a charge for those units of £49.02. The Claimant would have anticipated a charge for those units of £27.69, being 1,111 units at the Follow-On rate of 2.492p. The difference is £21.33.
However, it is denied that the Claimant has suffered this loss or any loss because of the following measures introduced by the Defendant in combination with the change in Cycle described in paragraph 13 above. On the 30/04/2007 the Defendant reduced its Follow-On price to 1.915p per unit. The effect of the 30 April 2007 reduction in the Follow-On price reduced the Claimant's overall charges for the 6 month Cycle referred to in paragraph 13 above by £35.21. Therefore the sum of £21.33 referred to in paragraph 13 was offset by the £35.21, resulting in a net saving of £13.88 to the Claimant. In the circumstances the Claimant has suffered no loss.
With effect from 01/11/2007 a new Cycle commenced because the charging profile was changed from Flat to a new Seasonally Weighted charging structure. The Claimant was notified of this change as described in paragraph 20 below). Under this Cycle, and with effect from its introduction, the Claimant will not be or would not have been charged per annum in excess of 4,572 units at the Primary Block rate.
It is also denied that the Defendant is in breach of its contract to the Claimant for failure to notify the Claimant of changes in connection with the supply of gas on 01/04/2006, 01/05/2007, 01/11/2007 and 5/01/2008.
The terms of the Claimant's contract annexed to the Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant is obliged to notify the Claimant "if we increase our prices or reduce our discount...". The terms of the Contract also require the Defendant to notify the Claimant if changes are made to the terms of supply that put the Claimant in a worse position. The terms of the contract then provide that in such circumstances, the Defendant is required to notify the Claimant that the Claimant has a limited period to terminate his contract in order to avoid the change having any effect on him.
On 01/04/2006 the Claimant's gas prices were increased. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant in mid to late March 2006 to notify the Claimant of the gas price increase and his right to terminate and there has been no breach therefore.
On 01/05/2007 the Defendant made changes to the terms of supply by changing the charging profile from Seasonally Weighted to Flat in combination with reducing the Defendant's Follow-On prices from 2.492p to 1.915p. The Defendant analysed the combined effect of these changes together for the new 12-month Cycle from 01/05/2007 and it was determined that none of its gas customers would be placed in a worse position. For this reason, the Defendant was under no obligation to notify the Claimant of such changes on that date.
On 01/11/2007 the Defendant changed the charging profile from Flat to a new Seasonally Weighted charging structure. The Claimant was notified of this change by means of a leaflet inserted with his bill dated 29 November 2007 and containing a section entitled "Changes to the way gas rates are applied" which notified of the profile change and there has been no breach therefore.
On 05/01/2008 the Claimant's gas prices were increased. The Defendant wrote to all of its affected customers, including the Claimant, on or around January 2008 to give notification of the gas price increase and customers' right to terminate.

In the circumstances, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief, for the reasons alleged or at all.

END

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Background
This claim is in respect of alleged overcharging and Breaches of Contract by the Defendant during the period 1st April, 2003 to 4th August, 2008, inclusive. During that time the Defendant supplied my domestic gas.
On or about the 22nd March, 2008, I received a gas bill, dated 14th March, 2008. It was more than I thought it should be. The reason appeared to be that an unusually large quantity of Primary Block units had been charged. I checked my previous bills and calculated I had been charged for substantially more than the maximum 4572kwh Primary Block units the contract allowed to be charged per annum.
I made several telephone enquiries to the Defendant asking for an explanation. Each time I called I was given a different excuse for the high amount of Primary Block units applied to my bill. On 4th April, 2008, I wrote to the Defendant requesting full details of how they had charged for gas from 1st April, 2003 onwards. The letter was posted Recorded Delivery and received and signed for by the Defendant on 8th April, 2008. I never received a reply.
A copy of the letter is in the attached Schedule of Documents.
Similarly, recorded delivery letters requesting information were sent to the Defendant on 29/04/2008, 3/05/2008 and 13/06/2008 but were unanswered.
Throughout this dispute the Defendant has adopted an evasive and uncooperative attitude and provided misleading information. As a result of this, inaccurate information supplied by the Defendant, which I believed to be true, was included in my original claim. Once I discovered the inaccuracies, I applied to the Court for an amendment to be made to rectify the errors. This amendment was granted on 17th June, 2008.
Having had the opportunity to read the Defendants’ Statement of Defence dated 26th June, 2008, I find that a ‘Flat’ and ‘Seasonally weighted’ “Cycle” was introduced on 1st April, 2003. This was one of the items of information I requested in my, unanswered, letters referred to above. Because the Defendant did not provide this information, prior to the Court hearing the application for amendment, this has again caused the (amended) claim to be inaccurate. The date for calculating gas overcharged was amended from 1/04/2006 to 1/10/2004. Unfortunately this is now incorrect. The correct date for calculating such charges should be 1st April, 2003.
The Defendant denies any overcharging or breach of contract. The Defendants Statement of Defence acknowledges that overcharging was caused by changing the way Primary Block units were charged for, over a year. The Defendant claims to have the right to make a year of any length of time in order to justify the overcharging.
The Defendant also states that by increasing the number of maximum Primary Block units (but not the price) the Defendant is entitled to charge over a year, is not a price increase. Therefore this is not a change that the terms and conditions require customers to be notified of.
Increasing the number of Primary Block units causes an increase in the price paid for gas. Therefore this should be notified to customers.

Period of the Claim.
The period of the claim is from 1st April 2003 to 4th August, 2008. It is based on billing information and the published terms and conditions of the contract. My contract with the Defendant ran from 3rd January, 1997 to 4th August, 2008 and was for the Defendant to supply my domestic gas in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

A two tier pricing system was introduced on 1st April, 2003. The first 4572kWh supplied per annum is referred to as the Primary Block. The remainder of gas supplied per annum is referred to as the Follow-On rate. Primary Block units are charged at a higher price than Follow-On units. Up to 30th April, 2008, precise details of how the Primary Block rate was charged were not notified to me by the Defendant. The Defendant concealed these details since they were introduced on 1st April, 2003.

The Defendant has provided three separate explanations of how the Primary Block Units are charged. These are contained in letters from the Defendant dated 30th April, 2008, the 6th June, 2008 and in the Defendants’ Statement of Defence dated 26th June, 2008. (Copies of these documents are in the attached Schedule). The Defendant has not made it clear which of these methods, if any, were used by the Defendant to calculate Primary Block years. What is clear is that none of the methods described are shown in the terms and conditions.

The letter of the 30th April and the Statement of Defence give definitions of a ‘tariff’ year and a “Cycle” respectively. There appears to be little difference between how the two have been applied in practice. I cannot find either of these definitions of a year or per annum stated or implied in the terms and conditions, including the definitions section. These definitions of a year appear to have been invented for the purpose of attempting to legitimise systematic overcharging.

I have taken the terms ‘year’ and ’per annum’ as used in the terms and conditions to be the common plain English understanding of those terms. I have used calendar years for the calculation of Primary Block years. I will use 1st April, 2003 to 31st March, 2004 as the first Primary Block year et seq. For each Primary Block year the Defendant was entitled to charge up to a maximum of 4572kWh at the Primary Block rate.

For the year 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2005, I was charged 5470kWh at the Primary Block rate. An overcharge of 898 units (5470-4572). These overcharged units should have been charged at the Follow-On rate. The Defendant has not denied overcharging for that year and failing to notify me of the intended overcharge.

For the year 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006, I was charged 4585kWh at the Primary Block rate. An overcharge of 13 units (4585-4572). These overcharged units should have been charged at the Follow-On rate. The Defendant has not denied overcharging for that year and failing to notify me of the intended overcharge.

For the year 1st April, 2007, to 31st March, 2008, I was charged for 6514 Primary Block units. An overcharge of 1942 units (6514-4572). These overcharged units should have been charged at the Follow-On rate. The Defendant admits planning and executing the overcharging of Primary Block units from April of that year and admits failing to notify me of the intended overcharge. The Defendant claims that I was compensated for this period of overcharging by lowering the price of the Follow-On rate to offset the additional Primary Block units. This is incorrect.

The Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions by not notifying in full, or at all, the changes to the terms under which gas was supplied on 1st April, 2003, 1st October, 2004, 1st May, 2007 and 1st November, 2007. The Defendant is not clear if there was such a change on 1st October, 2006.


The Defendant claims to have sent me a leaflet enclosed with my bill dated 29th November, 2007, which the Defendant alleges was full written notification of the changes made on 1st November, 2007. The Defendant enclosed no such leaflet with this bill. No evidence has been produced to support this claim. I did receive a leaflet enclosed with my bill dated 14th March, 2008, titled ‘At your Service’. There is a small section on the back which mentions ‘seasonal weighting.’ A copy (of the front and back) is attached to the Schedule of Documents.

The Defendant increased prices on 1/4/2003, 1/2/2004, 1/10/2004, 1/1/2006, 1/4/2006, 1/10/2006 and 5/1/2008. The Defendant is required to notify all customers, in writing, of price increases. As far as I am aware the Defendant complied with this requirement with regards to increases in the pence per kWh rate. These were ideal opportunities to include and explain full details of the Primary Block charging methodology. The Defendant chose not to disclose them.
Amount of Claim
I have had to use my own method of calculating costs as the Defendant failed to provide their method of calculation, as requested on 4th April, 2008. Accordingly there may be discrepancies between the Defendants’ figures and mine. A breakdown of the figures is attached to the Schedule of documents.
I claim that the defendant repay the amount I was overcharged for the years:

1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2005.
1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006
1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008
Total claimed = £102.06 incl. VAT

I claim the following additional overcharged amounts be reimbursed by the Defendant. These amounts were wrongfully charged because of the Defendants non-compliance with the terms and conditions, as explained below.

I do not dispute that the defendant gave me notice of the basic change in April, 2003, from a single price for gas and standing charge to the two tier system.
The methodology of charging for the Primary Block rate was much more complex than the simple system it replaced. It was a major departure from previous pricing policy and an important alteration to one of the core features of the contract. The Defendant failed to notify me of these complex changes until over five years after introducing them. These changes put me at a significant disadvantage. I was denied the opportunity to disagree with the changes. I would not have agreed to them, had I been fully informed of them. The terms and conditions are clear as to the responsibilities of the supplier when making a unilateral change to the way gas is supplied. The procedure, if the consumer disagrees, is equally clear.

The Defendant also failed to give the correct notification to the changes in the way gas was charged on 1st October, 2004, 1st May, 2007 and 1st November, 2007 as described above.

The Defendant has been in continuous breach of contract from 1st April, 2003. Therefore none of the changes made to the Primary Block rate on and from 1st April, 2003, up until the time I changed supplier, were in accordance with the terms and conditions. These changes should not have been applied to my account.

I claim that all gas charged by the Defendant on and from 1st April, 2003 to 4th August, 2008 should be recalculated at the prices in effect as at 31st March, 2003. If the Court should find that the Defendant did not commit this breach on 1st April, 2003, then I would respectfully ask the Court to order the Defendant to recalculate gas charges for any such subsequent breach the Court may find the Defendant liable.

From 1st April 2003, to 4th August, 2008, I used a total of 161,911kWh of gas and was charged £3516.22 incl. V.A.T.

The Defendant should have charged the prices applicable on 31st March, 2003 which were:
Gas @ 1.332p per kWh.
A daily Standing Charge of 10.89 pence per day. There were 1953 days in this period.

Total the defendant should have charged including VAT = £2487.80

Amount overcharged = £1028.42

Total Amount of Claim
Primary Block units overcharged £102.06
Recalculated charges from 31st March, 2003 £1028.42
Court Fees £170.00
Expenses £75.00
Total £1375.48

To the best of my knowledge and belief, this statement is true.
Signed


==========================================================


There, there is all is. Job done.
No farting around with links and downloads and God knows what??
Do people just like making work for themselves?

DirectDebacle

reactor wrote: »

There, there is all is. Job done.
No farting around with links and downloads and God knows what??
Do people just like making work for themselves?

Direct Debacle says thank you for this useful post.

BallandChain

Thank you Mr Reactor Sir! For the life of me it just would not download and I expect a lot of people might want to see the info on that page but can't access it. You sir are a scholar and a gentleman!

DirectDebacle

DirectDebacle wrote: »

On a positive note I think The Times will be doing another article on npower next Saturday. It will be following new claims arising from customers reading their last article. This is a definite rumour only.

Due to pre-Budget report lack of/time/space, no npower article in The Times this week.

meggsy

"Npower begins debate
Npower is aiming to engage consumers in an online debate about energy pricing amid negative publicity as energy firms register big profits. A dedicated website will feature a video of veteran journalist Peter Snow interviewing Npower's chief retail executive, Kevin Miles. The site also addresses frequently asked questions such as 'Why are energy prices so high?' and 'Petrol companies change prices quickly - why don't energy companies?' "

http://www.brandrepublic.com:80/News/864583/week-marketing-25-November-2008/

Get your questions ready folks :j

Anne3333

It may be due to the fact that Ofgem are now starting to look in to our complaints with regard to this. I have today received an email from Ofgem in response to an email I sent them back in April. Miracles may yet happen!

Anne3333

Get your questions ready folks :j

Ooooh, where do we start!!!