I'm afraid your story doesn't particularly surprise anyone here - but there are now a team of people that are taking on BES with some vengeance, if you would like to private message me then I will gladly pass their details. I should point out they are NOT lawyers or people who charge for their services, but I am prohibited from disclosing who they are for reasons of prejudice. Tut tut Silverfox, that's defamatory!

With formal notice from Ofgem in relation to an investigation of BES, it is considered reasonable to make the following information public; It is with some satisfaction I can finally reveal that a major London law firm has now agreed to look into BES with the intention of starting a group action. At this stage, anyone reading this that has received a 'gagging order' in theory will still be able to bring their case to the group action as evidence - any attempt to stop you doing that will be taken very seriously, and is almost certainly perverting the course of justice, so please do contact the group action in confidence. I am unable to divulge who this law firm is at the moment, as there are a couple of loose ends and the QC wants to see the cases in more detail (and needs a few more to look at). However, rest assured that the person I have looking at BES is one of the best QC's in the UK. He is vastly experienced with over 30 years experience in litigation both representing and taking actions against banks, investment companies and even the Government over contracts worth billions of pounds. He is the man for the job! The lawyer is also concerned about any letters anyone may have received from a law firm acting on behalf of BES threatening defamation. This is clearly defended by True Comment, Honest Opinion, Public Interest and Fair Comment, which under the circumstances are entirely reasonable. Some concern has also been cited in relation to the apparent time scales in the letter in question, and in fact whether the law firm had been correctly instructed. The group action is bring organised by someone else, but I can advise you it will seek to; 1) Investigate and if possible prove an unlawful connection between BES and brokers . 2) Investigate and if possible prove that contracts had been miss sold via bullying, intimidation, harassment and unwanted pressured sales calls. 3) Investigate and if possible prove that the contracts in question should be voided and the Contractees awarded damages. 4) Investigate and if possible prove that a number of telephone calls have been edited to serve the purposes of winning a judicial process. 5) Investigate and if possible prove that BES and companies herein have colluded and conspired to decept a court of law in order to obtain warrants for bailiff action and/or supply disconnection. 6) Using the evidence provided show our findings to a judge before a court of law with the intention of proving that BES and companies herein have acted unlawfully, wrongly and unreasonably - and to award the victims damages. The QC has kindly offered to look at cases free of charge, with the intention to mount a case once he has in the region of 10 cases - which I think will be somewhat of an underestimate of what he will receive. Once the Ofgem investigation is complete, the QC will be leaning on them for evidence to support the claims set out above. If you feel that you would like your case to be looked at, please email [email protected] with your details, they will be passed on and you will receive a reply in the upcoming weeks. The review process will be free of charge, and you will be notified if the QC is prepared to take on your case.

Hi Brainless, Do you use less than 100,000KWH hours per year? It may be interesting to read Ofgem's Electricity Supply Standard Licence Conditions, which suppliers are required to adhere to in order to retain their license. Section 7B.4 The Standards of Conduct are that: If you as allege you were entered into the contract fraudulently, I would advise you contact the Police. While the companies in question may not have the recordings, if this becomes a criminal matter, the CPS will very easily be able to get those recordings from the telecom company. I think it fair comment to suggest something sounds fishy in the way the Warrant was obtained. Do you have a copy?

I do note your position, but I think that is a bit over the top. While I was harsh on the rep, I did acknowledge their comments, but they were generally poor - so I grilled them to get a definite answer, which they declined to do. It makes me very sad and angry to see companies operate like this, it is not fair on hard working people. For example, one person who I've come to know through their experiences; his wife sadly died aged 37 leaving him with 3 young children to look after.... He invested her life insurance into a business, and had to close his business as the electricity bills were coming in 4-5 times higher per month than promised. So he's now lost everything. I'm sorry, if I gave BES a grilling, and made them feel uncomfortable and the knock on effect to you - but it is within the Public Interest for them to be exposed for what they are. They had every right of reply in the public eye, but chose not to. Plus, if your company is in a reputational crisis, you don't take those steps to save it.... Logic dictates that you show people that you are a changed business - but it would seem from the recent post about a non-profit organisation, this doesn't seem to be happening. I can provide supporting evidence to many of my comments... But as you will appreciate, I didn't want genuine victims to suffer more harassment and intimidation. In any case, innocent members of the public with no connection to the websites didn't deserve to receive these letters.

How can any reputable energy company accept 'contracts' from a brokers who have gone bust? I would put it beyond reasonable doubt that Melmonro's contract was canceled on the condition she no longer commented on the forum and requested the removal of this thread. You just can't treat people like this and expect to get away with it! It's wrong!

Here we go again! The thing that makes me so annoyed is that two weeks ago BES instructed lawyers to threaten users of this site and others with 'deformation', who offered honest and genuine views and opinions of the company. This quite honestly, is a nasty way to attempt to clean up an already tarnished reputation, and is rather ineffective as any claim is defensible under Honest Opinion, True Comment, Fair Comment and Public Interest which under these circumstances are entirely reasonable - plus people like me who actually took legal advise will tell everyone these letters were issued! My legal advise was they would "be mad" to attempt to issue proceedings, and if they did with their provable reputation the case would fail and some expert witnesses. Unfortunately, my actual legal advise is rude to share in the internet, but it came from a major QC who is used to litigation cases in the billions! It would appear BES are getting through their solicitors too. Heatons LLP, Berg, now Harrison Drury. Perhaps the solicitors are starting to realise something is clearly wrong here? Of course Pilley is nothing but a victim. Victimised by major news corporations, victimised by the BBC, victimised by multiple websites and their hundreds of users , victimised by Ofgem..... Which is clearly why near identical complaints have been made hundreds of times over 5+ websites over 4 years. Rant out of the way...... Let me look in some detail at your complaint, and I shall get back to you on how I think you can get yourself out of this mess!

This still does not provide an answer as to who this bogus broker is does it? It is in the public's interest to know. Will you please provide these details?

Hi, Unfortunately, under the Electricity Act 1989, as the incumbent supplier they have a right to charge you what they class as "emergency rates". I'm afraid to say that I would see it as highly likely if you issue proceedings they will be defended, and I don't this time fancy your chances of winning - and I'm an optimist. What you will have to do is pay up to the date you informed BES of your Change of Tenancy. After that date, it would be considered unlawful to attempt to block any attempts for you to change your supplier - and it is your legal right to choose a supplier if your choice. My suggestion would be to speak to the new supplier you have selected, and find out for what reason the change is being blocked. Do you know for what reason your supply is being blocked? If you can prove they are unreasonably blocking your supply after notice of a COT, you will have reasonable grounds for proceedings. But I am afraid you will be responsible for the electricity and standing charge bills from when you moved in to the date you notified them of your Change of Tenancy.

F.khan: Something is happening. Watch this space. I am limited on what I can say at present. Melmunro: It would help other users understand why from being so angry and feeling lied to (in your own words), you have now had a complete change of heart? I would also feel it reasonable to ask whether you have been coerced into requesting the removal of this thread as part of a resolution to your issues? It is with concern it appears that brokers who appear to have gone bust are in fact alive and kicking, and in your own admission "...did a huge hard sell, but said how independent they were....". Can you advise what BES's position was in respect of this?

Hi F.khan, If you have notified of Change of Tenancy, there is no legal reason why your alternative supplier should have been blocked from taking over the supply. Can you advise what your position is here? Have you had a reply to your correspondence? If you have not signed into a contract with the incumbent supplier, you technically are liable for standing charges and 'emergency' rates. It would be my advice to ensure that when you finally do change supplier you are not billed past the date you gave notice of COT.

Hi Melmonro Commercial Utilities Ltd is in fact a company that went into liquidation in March of 2013, and dissolved in July 2014. anyone using that name must be sole trader or a limited company trading as Commercial Utilities. It would be my advice in the offset to ask BES who the broker was. It would be worth seeing the other thread about Commercial Reductions Ltd I commented, which confirms in Mr Pilley's own words how much he likes to ensure his brokers are honest, independent and regulated... ... So BES must have this information. So who sold you the contract? It can't be Commercial Utilities Ltd as they went bust. BES will be your only solution to work out exactly which legal entity called you. You will want to know WHO it was and WHO owns the company. If they can't provide you with those details, the contract must be considered null and void. There is a London Barrister from a big law firm who is taking a close interest to BES, if you can't get anywhere with them feel free to post and I shall give you his details. Your account of the broker in terms of reeling off the terms quickly rings familiar. I may stand corrected, but it is my understanding there are some telesales regulations which act as a guide to approximately how many words a minute you may use when signing someone into a contract. I shall ask the Barrister tomorrow. As a precaution, I would sign the lease in a different name, and do a Change of Tenancy after you have moved in so that the contract cannot stand up legally. It concerns me that you have said that the broker said "i needed to get it organised now" - clearly a broker is there to give independent advice. My energy on a commercial property changed within 7 days, whilst is can be up to 8 weeks - it sounds like you are being led up the garden path a bit. In response to your question about recordings...... The Barrister has it on authority from an ex-employee of BES that in fact brokers do record the whole conversation, but only choose to issue part of the recordings. Clearly, this isn't a true representation of the entire conversation as it fails to show the circumstances into how the person agreed to the contract - in your case you allege it was a pressure sell, but if only part of the conversation is issued there is no evidence of that, which quite clearly can be played on. Unfortunately, generally the Telecoms companies will only release the recordings of these calls when the Police step in, so it is unlikely under any civil action you can obtain the 'true' recordings. However, the Barrister in question has stated that the onus would be on the broker/energy company to prove they have not altered the conversation if you aver that it is an accurate version. In respect of brokers I can make no comment. I can tell you that BES appear to have recordings of entire conversations, as they sent me one. The challenge will be proving that the broker has the entire recording, but isn't prepared to part with it. As a point of caution I would feel it reasonable to point out that both the brokers and BES appear to be asking for gas meter serial numbers too. Their sales agent asked me for my gas serial number - despite trying to sell me an electricity contract. Clearly Gas had no relevance to his failed sales pitch, so I am at a loss as to why they would ask for this information unless it was being added to a form of database - which warrants the question why do they need and what is being done with this data? Does that help at all?

P.PS Whilst at present it cannot be proved that Pilley is linked in business terms with Commercial Energy Ltd. It can be proved that Lee Lee Goulding/Qualter, director of Commercial Energy Ltd has been a business partner with Andy Pilley on; - Cash Machine Solutions Ltd - New Data Ltd (along with Michelle Davidson, also an owner/director of BES) Both of these companies were registered at 117 Rossall Road, Cleveleys, Blackpool, FY5 1HQ Meanwhile Commercial Energy Ltd is registered at 13 Rossall Road, Cleveleys, Blackpool, FY5 1AP

P.S quick company check shows that Mr Martindale is the 100% shareholder of Commercial Reduction Services Ltd....... By law you are required to submit correct and accurate records to Companies House. So why is (in Mr Martindale's own terminology) his business partner Mr Pilley not listed? Just to be clear on Mr Pilley's stance on his relationship energy brokers; And so we are all clear on the word independent, from our friends at the Oxford English Dictionary;

I did exactly that, and copied two different sets of lawyers in. Didn't stop them calling back 2 days later STILL trying to make a sale.[ATTACH=CONFIG]53767[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]53767[/ATTACH] It should be said for completeness that on complaint BES claimed the guy was calling me to tell me that he received my email but erm couldn't reply and was thus calling to tell me he wouldn't call again......logical right? Apparently they had listened to the recording and allege that is what he stated his reason for the call was...... In reality he called me and asked "did you have any thoughts on the prices I emailed you?", to which I told him about this email I had sent and he claimed he didn't get it (it was also sent to the generic Customer Services address, and most certainly with the tone it had they would or at least should have thought to forward to him). Obviously, with what apparently was two massively different versions of events (theirs and mine) and with them claiming to have the evidence of this recording, I asked that they send me a recording of this supposed conversation they claim to have.......... and I'm still waiting..... Oddly, when I reported them to the Police and sent them the crime reference number the phone stopped ringing. That's until yesterday afternoon that is. With regards to Commercial Reductions, it's all rather very interesting, really; A two minute Google search shows Commercial Reduction Services Ltd is in fact listed as a non-trading/dormant company........so either they shouldn't be trading, or are filing false returns to Companies House. By Mr Martindale's own admission; Erm, how can you have a free choice of the energy market when you have exclusive ties to an energy company? [ATTACH=CONFIG]53768[/ATTACH] It is my understanding through the supply network regulations Mr Pilley is not allowed to have any ownership or business interest in brokers, although I may be wrong on this point. As far as I am aware Mr Pilley has always denied any ownership or links with brokers? Which is clearly rather contrary to what Mr Martindale appears to quite publicly state. Mr Pilley also denies any links to Commercial Energy Ltd, another broker. NOW.............. You're never going to believe this. The registered office of Commercial Reduction Services Ltd is; 145-157 St John Street, London, England, EC1V 4PW By shear coincidence, this happens to be the same registered office as a certain Energy Search Ltd, director being a Mr Lee Qualter. Mr Qualter also known as Lee Goulding also happens to own another company, Commercial Energy Ltd. There also happens to be a company called Commercial Energy Brokers Ltd owned by a Mr Lee Wigham. However it is based in Newcastle, and there is nothing to prove it is linked in any way shape for form with Commercial Energy Ltd. NOW.............. You're never going to believe this. I have this quote/disclaimer from my limited company checker; To do the maths, there are 3,068,192 registered companies in the UK. I therefore make the probability of shear coincidence 1 in 242,580,002 that Commercial Reductions and Commercial Energy have landed the address by shear coincidence. This is factual information, and took me 5 minutes to find. Anyone else a little confused?

Careful or you will be getting a letter from their solicitors! We requested recordings of the 3 or 4 calls we had with them - and they managed to provide one, which I was not happy was an accurate representation of the conversation held. Alarming people into the fact they are paying "emergency rates" appears to be the classic. If you look at it psychologically if you phone someone and use the word "emergency", straight away it lures you into a false sense of insecurity.