Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
  • 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

Electricity meter clock and register errors


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4818 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

I have had two Horstmann S123 multi tariff electricity meters replaced this year due to faulty operation.

 

The most obvious problems were clock errors. The first meter was over two hours out and the second meter was over 1 hour out when compared to the GMT radio time signal. The meters should be aligned to GMT during the winter period. This means that a lot of off peak usage would be recorded as peak usage as one tends to program high energy usage for off peak times. The energy supplier has offered an adjustment, but I am not entirely happy about how this is calculated.

 

I also believe that the first meter was either subject to storm damage due to very local lightning strikes shortly after it was installed or had an inherently faulty register/memory. The register/memory, that records the number of units of electricity used, began reading much higher than usual after this storm event. A check meter was installed in February last year to monitor the erroneous meter. I made regular comparison readings during the time the check meter was installed and these showed the erroneous meter suffered from variable errors in the number of electricity units recorded over this period that were outside the allowed meter accuracy limits defined by OFCOM. Strangely the electricity supplier is denying this although they are admitting the clock errors exist.

 

The house has thermal insulation that exceeds current building regulations and although the heating uses an electric central heating boiler, it should be very economical to heat due to this high level of insulation. This is not reflected in the size of the bills being presented for the period the first meter was in use.

 

Has anyone had problems with their electricity meter accuracy, either clock errors, or wildly varying recorded consumption of electricity that bears no relation to actual use of electricity.

 

I have discussed the clock error issue with the electricity supplier and they have admitted that they have been having clock errors with meters but so far will not give any details about these errors and their frequency in writing. I wonder why? It may be that there are many meters showing problems with clock errors, which could be very embarrassing considering that the meters are supposedly certified as accurate. I believe that a large proportion of meters may be running incorrectly and it could be a good idea to check the time on your meter clock to ensure it is operating correctly. If you find that you have a clock error you will have been overcharged for some of your off peak usage.

 

Please report your findings on this thread.

 

AfonScimitar

Edited by AfonScimitar
Title should have been in bold
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean OFGEM not OFCOM, you can get at least 6 years worth of data from the supplier, so you can compare usage from various periods. You can also get the meter inspected independantly with the suppliers permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello rebel11,

 

You are correct I did mean OFGEM.

 

I have already requested all data held on the account since it was opened in 1997 by means of a SAR via Special Delivery on 11/01/11, which was delivered on 14/01/11. The energy supplier has until 23rd February to supply the data.

 

Historical usage comparison is tricky as the supply was first instigated on 09/07/07 to enable the house to be renovated. At this time the house had no electrical wiring as it had been gutted previously to enable ground-up renovation. Unfortunately the mortgage funds were delayed due to technicalities and the renovation subcontractors did not start work on the house until September 2007 after the funds were released. Residence did not begin until 5th December, as the house was not habitable until then. The old mechanical mechanism meter was for economy 7 and economy 10 was required for the under floor heating system so the new solid-state (integrated circuit) Horstmann S123 meter was fitted on 29/04/08. The early bills were estimated and they were so close to actual that they were paid without adjustment. Following a bad local thunderstorm the meter began to read much higher than previously and several telephone communications were made with the supplier’s customer service department concerning a much higher bill than usual. None of the customer services operatives were technically competent and all tried to override anything I said with their customer complaint script sheet. I did finally get through to someone who had the authority to adjust bills and this resulted in cancellation of a fairly high bill. When further higher bills arrived they were disputed until I eventually requested that the meter be checked for accuracy. The check meter was installed on 08/02/10 and removed on 29/06/10 along with the faulty meter. During the check period I took readings of both meters and found discrepancies between them. The supplier is denying this as they have a different set of figures for start and finish for this period. With access to these meters being no longer available, it is my word against theirs and, as the law stands firmly behind utility providers, I am doubtful that I can contest this, as would be the case on a level legal playing field. This is why I have asked for others who have had similar experiences to let me know on this thread, as it will help my case and theirs too should battle commence.

 

The first meter was removed on 29/06/10 when the second meter was fitted. I requested in writing that the old meter was retained for evidence and independent testing on 13/07/10. This communication was completely ignored. I have repeated this request several times by telephone and in writing with no further action on their part to verify retention of the meter until very recently. I consider this meter to be a crucial piece of evidence should the dispute escalate further. I have disputed the amount on the bills that were presented through the period that the faulty meter was in operation. I have also requested that the check meter and the second (replacement) meter that has been found to have a faulty clock be retained as evidence. It would appear that meters are not retained until disputes are settled, but are sent for exchange from the manufacturer at their earliest convenience thus removing any evidence of malfunction from scrutiny.

 

 

AfonScimitar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello mattlamb,

This is somewhat worrying as the meter clock accuracy is important to ensure correct tariff billing. This means that there will be many people with dual tariff meters billed incorrectly.

I have been looking briefly for information about clock accuracy regulations but I have not found anything so far. Do you know the limits of accuracy allowed for the clock?

AfonScimitar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...