Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Eon and business electricity disconnection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5390 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

Currently in a bit of a bind with Eon, who've obtained a warrant to disconnect the electricity from my business premises. They're supposed to be coming on Tuesday, so I'm trying to deal with this pretty urgently! The situation is that we share a large old converted factory with four other small businesses. Each company is self contained, but there's only one electricity meter & supply. We asked to get these divided, but the suppliers wanted to charge something like £4k each. Consequently, we decided between us that my company would collect the money from the other tenants, in addition to looking after a few other maintenance tasks about the building. More fool me, with hindsight, you might well say, but it seemed a good idea at the time.

 

Anyway, some arrears had built up over the course of the year, as other people got behind with their bills, but it was all manageable, and I'd reached an agreement for regular payments and Eon were perfectly happy.

 

I've just come back off holiday to discover bailiffs have been round to disconnect us! On investigation, another of the tenants had been sending their share of the payments direct to Eon, and two of their cheques had bounced. This flagged us as not keeping to our payment plan, and as a bad credit risk. Eon are now refusing to take anything less than the full payment, and are coming back on Tuesday to cut the whole site off.

 

I've negotiated and pleaded, but they're pretty implacable, even if this means they're not going to receive a penny, even in this climate. I wouldn't be unduly worried about winding up my own company, and leaving them to chase that. The miscreants are going to be disconnected from the communal supply and can sort their own problems out - they're actually in breach of their lease, so could get kicked out altogether. My concern is for the other, honest businesses getting cut off. There's not a problem with paying the bills either - it's just not going to happen in one lump sum.

 

So my question to the board is how we can reasonably keep the supply on, until we can get on an even keel. The first possibility I can think of is to start afresh with a new supplier, and another one of the companies as the name on the bill, effectively as new tenants. This apparently could take weeks, though, particularly if Eon don't want to play ball.

 

Does anyone have any ideas how I can buy some time between now and Tuesday? We've had conversations between us, and Eon are adamant that they won't accept the amount of cash that we can get together in that time - they wouldn't even take a cheque!

 

A couple of issues worth mentioning, although I don't know if they have any bearing on the warrant:

 

-For the last year or so, we've had suspicions about the accuracy of the meter. We've asked repeatedly for an engineer to come and verify that we're being billed correctly, but nothing's been done. The usual response is that we should get a third party electrical contractor in to do it, but of course that's a complete nonsense - how can a third party check the accuracy of Eon's meter?

 

-The meter itself is not in my premises - it's in a different part of the factory tenanted by someone else. This is where they need access to disconnect.

 

-As far as I can see from the legislation (Right of Entry (Gas & Electricity) Act 1954), in order to obtain a warrant, they need to previously have requested access for the same purpose with no less than 24 hours notice. They certainly didn't do this, so it appears that the warrant was issued on the basis of false information. Any lawyers on the board - am I reading this right?

 

- There's also a massive data protection issue. Another one of the tenants rang up and was freely given a complete rundown of all account transactions without my authorisation. Clear breach of DP, although I haven't done anything with it yet, like refer to Information Commission.

 

Any ideas? Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS I see it the only chance you have is if the warrant is for the wrong address. It must be for the property where the meter is located and not where the energy is supplied.

 

Prior to obtaining the warrant the company should have sent someone on a pre disconnection visit to attempt to resolve the dispute and read the meter.

 

Following that there is a requirement, under the Human Rights Act, for them to give you notice that they are going to court to obtain the warrant of entry - this usually requires seven days notice and these letters should be addressed to the occupier of the property where the meter is located.

 

I hope that there might be a nugget of assistance there.

 

Regards

GK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot, GTP - genius! The power's supplied to one building (the address on the warrant, and also the billing address), but the meter's in the premises next door, at a different address.

 

All I need is the time to sort out a reasonable payment schedule without plunging everyone into darkness - this should do the trick. Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a footnote, the warrant WAS wrongly addressed. However, the bailiffs argued very forcefully that this didn't matter as "their legal team had checked the details".

 

All complete rubbish, of course, but fortunately the police officer who came down stood his ground and refused to let them force entry, as the warrant was inaccurate. This was despite threats to report him to his superiors, etc, etc.

 

They were then going to go to the Magistrates' court that morning and get the warrant amended. I argued that as the address was wrong, they couldn't have given notice to the occupier of the premises with the meter in. Again, they argued the toss, but relented eventually. They now have to start the whole warrant process again.

 

Result! This gives a bunch of honest businesses a couple of weeks breathing space to thrash out an affordable deal and keep trading. Thanks again, Gamekeeper!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Johnny,

 

I know it takes some b^%$^%s to stand up to the bailiff especially when they bring plod along. As you may have guessed, and to prevent flaming, I have always admitted on my profile, I was a bailiff doing that very job.

 

Now when they write under the human rights act advising you of tghe proposed court date you have a few other delaying potentials.

 

1 You could write to the court advising them that you wish to attend but are unable to on the day as you have an appointment or will be on holiday.

 

2 You can turn up at court and say why you do not wish the warrant to be issued and very often the magistrates will give you a month to sort it out or the warrant officer will withdraw your one warrant so they can get the other 100 or so passed through.

 

If you would like to show your appreciation by dinging the scales over there

 

Regards

 

GK

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Unfortunately, my faith in the legal system has now had a complete battering. For entirely legitimate reasons (I've been quarantined at home with swine flu FFS!) we wrote and asked the court to delay the warrant hearing for another week. The warrant application was based on false information, and all we needed to do was attend the hearing and put the facts straight. They failed to give correct notice to the occupier of the intention to obtain a warrant, for one.

 

The judge decided to ignore this request completely, and executed the warrant there and then. Apparently the utilities companies will have their (false) evidence automatically rubber-stamped, and we've been denied the right to a hearing. They were presumably upset at having been made idiots of before, so they came in and cut us off right away - so now our companies are sitting in the dark on the back of someone else's debt.

 

Will be taking legal advice on this one - the warrant wasn't sought correctly, a reasonable request to have the hearing rescheduled was ignored, and now we're all sitting in the dark.

 

Ever come across anything like this before, Gamekeeper?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't. They sent one notification addressed to a former tenant, incorrectly addressed, so we heard about it second hand. They didn't send anything to any of the companies actually resident in the building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JB,

 

How did they gain entry to the property that contains the meters? as they only need to execute the warrant if they are refused entry.

 

I have come across this type of thing before in the way that these power companies seem to be power crazy. In the past I have been forced to disconnect people knowing that it did not make commercial sense!

 

TBH I would wind up the company and let them go ...... although I sympathise for the good companies who now have no power.

 

The only further step might be a complaint to the regulator - I can only apologise for not knowing what that organisation is now called as it is 3 years since I was in the industry and they seem to change titles like most people change their clothes.

 

Regards

 

GK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...