Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • gwynge
    • By gwynge 9th Apr 18, 12:31 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 8Thanks
    gwynge
    Suing Iresa
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 12:31 PM
    Suing Iresa 9th Apr 18 at 12:31 PM
    Today I issued a summon using MoneyClaimOnline against Iresa. The second this year. Here's the background:

    In January they manufactured a false meter reading and took a large extra direct debit payment (382) from my account. They did not respond to requests to repay it so I issued a claim against them. Within days they refunded it.

    Our contract was ending in March and I elected to switch to another provider however at the end of February they manufactured another false meter reading (saying we had used 6000 kWh in one day) and also rejected our switch. Which as were were not in debt they were not entitled to do.

    A complaint submitted on 13th March has remained unanswered. Also from our account I can see that they deducted the court fee from the claim they settled from my account which of course they are not allowed to do.

    In my complaint I said that they must complete the switch by 22nd March (the day our current contract ends) and if they did not then I would be happy to enter into a new contract with them however that contract would be for 1p/kWh + standing charge. And this would be payable 28 days after receiving a valid bill. If they did not complete the switch then they would be deemed to have accepted this new contract.

    I have now issued a summons for the remaining balance in my account on 23rd March + the court fees they previously took from my account + some damages for financial harm (having to spend several hours dealing with their error).

    As it looks like they might well go bankrupt I wanted to get the claim in early.

    I will never bother with our toothless regulators, instead always work out a way to express the complaint financially and use the small claims court system. It's easy, I've used it more than a dozen times and I've never lost a case. I have successfully sued Vodafone (3 times - the second time I got to send the bailiffs in), Easyjet, my local council, Sky amongst others..
Page 1
    • trickytree1963
    • By trickytree1963 9th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    • 241 Posts
    • 148 Thanks
    trickytree1963
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 1:26 PM
    In my complaint I said that they must complete the switch by 22nd March (the day our current contract ends) and if they did not then I would be happy to enter into a new contract with them however that contract would be for 1p/kWh + standing charge. And this would be payable 28 days after receiving a valid bill. If they did not complete the switch then they would be deemed to have accepted this new contract.

    They will probably agree as you left SC vague? 1p per kWh plus 10 per day SC should be ok for them?
    • gwynge
    • By gwynge 9th Apr 18, 3:47 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    gwynge
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 3:47 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 3:47 PM
    Actually I didn't. I didn't mention it here for brevity but I did also state "plus standard daily standing charge"
    • Theta101
    • By Theta101 9th Apr 18, 9:56 PM
    • 135 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Theta101
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 9:56 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 9:56 PM
    Today I issued a summon using MoneyClaimOnline against Iresa.
    Thanks for this. I was thinking of doing the same with TOTO Energy who owe me 116.
    • House Martin
    • By House Martin 9th Apr 18, 10:38 PM
    • 1,284 Posts
    • 1,064 Thanks
    House Martin
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:38 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:38 PM
    Well I hope they do not go bust.
    I have recommended them to three close friends for the last two years using Iresa Energy. I made sure to use a correct yearly kwh usage for them when helping them with a comparison site to switch, slightly over to cope with a colder winter and all three are very happy using the cheapest or near cheapest supplier in the UK with a much lower monthly direct debit and all three have never had to contact them..
    One friend went down from 130 a month to 85 using them and the 85 is correct.
    I think people switch to them without logging a correct annual kwh and then have to try and contact them.They are cheap for a reason..fewer employees in their call centres.
    I hope they survive, I think they will but surely your case should have gone to the Ombudsman rather than making business for the High Court Sheriffs on a TV program.
    The Bailiffs do work though because I saw them ( as High Court Sheriffs) going into the giant G4S offices and coming out with the money quickly. They are not frightened of a large FTSE 100 company
    Last edited by House Martin; 10-04-2018 at 12:25 AM.
    • gwynge
    • By gwynge 10th Apr 18, 11:31 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    gwynge
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:31 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:31 AM
    I hope they don't go bust as well.. I rather like my new contract with them... but as Ofgem have stopped them taking on new customers and required them to up their support levels they may well start getting into trouble with cashflow.

    The Ombudsman route is slow and weak. And whilst the Ombudsman might fine the companies it doesn't really help you as an individual. All of our regulators are fairly toothless, Ofgem, Ofwat, Ofsted. Don't even get me started on the ICO. You already have to go through a protracted complaints process with the company before you can even get to the appropriate regulator and if the company does not properly respond to complaints (and of course the bad ones don't - remember they're bad!) it's additional effort, time and frustration.

    The ombudsman is like turning up to a fight with a peashooter. The small claims court is a nuclear missile. They cannot ignore it. And if they do then they automatically lose and you send the bailiffs in, and like you say they're not afraid of anyone.

    When I sued Sky for 200 (plus getting their attention to force them to terminate our contract) I actually had to go to court. Sky didn't attend but they sent nearly 100 pages of evidence in their defence. Screenshots, interview notes with tier staff, transcripts of conversations etc. I said to the judge "I feel a bit bad, putting the court to all this trouble to settle a 200 complaint" and he said to me "Don't. It's your right to do this" and then he said "Do not underestimate just how much this will have cost them to produce all of this evidence". And he's right. It will have cost them thousands to have dealt with it.

    So I see this as a much more effective way of getting companies' attention and punishing them for bad behaviour.
    • Hengus
    • By Hengus 10th Apr 18, 11:49 AM
    • 5,585 Posts
    • 3,425 Thanks
    Hengus
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:49 AM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:49 AM
    I hope they don't go bust as well.. I rather like my new contract with them... but as Ofgem have stopped them taking on new customers and required them to up their support levels they may well start getting into trouble with cashflow.

    The Ombudsman route is slow and weak. And whilst the Ombudsman might fine the companies it doesn't really help you as an individual. All of our regulators are fairly toothless, Ofgem, Ofwat, Ofsted. Don't even get me started on the ICO. You already have to go through a protracted complaints process with the company before you can even get to the appropriate regulator and if the company does not properly respond to complaints (and of course the bad ones don't - remember they're bad!) it's additional effort, time and frustration.

    The ombudsman is like turning up to a fight with a peashooter. The small claims court is a nuclear missile. They cannot ignore it. And if they do then they automatically lose and you send the bailiffs in, and like you say they're not afraid of anyone.

    When I sued Sky for 200 (plus getting their attention to force them to terminate our contract) I actually had to go to court. Sky didn't attend but they sent nearly 100 pages of evidence in their defence. Screenshots, interview notes with tier staff, transcripts of conversations etc. I said to the judge "I feel a bit bad, putting the court to all this trouble to settle a 200 complaint" and he said to me "Don't. It's your right to do this" and then he said "Do not underestimate just how much this will have cost them to produce all of this evidence". And he's right. It will have cost them thousands to have dealt with it.

    So I see this as a much more effective way of getting companies' attention and punishing them for bad behaviour.
    Originally posted by gwynge
    I agree. The problem with the EO route is (a) the time that it takes and (b) the Law of Unintended Outcomes. The possibility of the latter needs to be thought through very carefully as it has consequences for any future legal action.
    • oldwiring
    • By oldwiring 10th Apr 18, 6:40 PM
    • 2,268 Posts
    • 454 Thanks
    oldwiring
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:40 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:40 PM
    High Court? I would think that most cases would be for the Small Claims Court.

    I had wondered, if anyone would take the court route. The problem Isee for some is the quantification of the debt owed, so the debtor has no room to refute it.
    • gwynge
    • By gwynge 10th Apr 18, 11:46 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    gwynge
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:46 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 11:46 PM
    Yes, it is the small claims court. The nice thing about the small claims court is that if you are awarded any part of the claim then the other party has to pay the issuing fee (which is already very small anyway - roughly 10% minimum 25) . And you don't need an exact figure. Sue for what you think is 500 and then if it turns out the actual amount was 432.12 then that is what will be awarded. I'm not sure what would happen if the actual amount was higher. I presume they would only award what you asked for. And it still counts as a win.
    If you're suing in an ongoing situation - and sometimes you have to - then the numbers will be variable. I'd always go higher if unsure.
    But in my experience it rarely gets to court and they settle it within the first couple of weeks to your satisfaction. And then you cancel the summons.
    The other thing is that if you are suing a company then you get to choose the court. And normally it'll be local to you and not so local to them. Do they really want to send their representative half way across the country to defend it? No and they know this - more pressure to sort it out. And in the 2 cases I actually went to court they submitted written evidence and the judge took a dim view of this and of course they are not there to answer questions so already on the back foot
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,221Posts Today

6,289Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin